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

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

about design: not all the world understands about principles of engineering. Maybe you an engineer or maybe you wear xray glasses but not everyone is like you.

about the secret knowledge: I believe a couple pages back we gave some ideas to make the VF even better: built in magnification to accomodate for wide or tele lenses, built in diopter adjustments, RF patch for both horizontal and vertical shots, possible focus confirmation etc...

and finally about history lessons and sarcasm: it seems you excel in both, and it's a good thing if you feel happy about it, however, in the 35mm SLR world I won't be able to find a single dSLR made in Germany Dresden

 

Yes, you're entirely within your right to apply your own meaning to words and to use false facts in your arguments.

 

But then, we're entitled to point out where your argument falls flat because of the facts which aren't true and the words which mean other things.

 

The SLR in its current form was invented and built in Germany, not in Japan as you stated. Magnification and diopter adjustment are possible improvements to the RF while RF patch in two directions and focus confirmation are not.

 

The Wikipedia has a very nice article on Design which does not require any x-ray vision to understand.

[Dabow]

 

A clear demonstration of cluelessness. And in public. I'm embarrassed for him.

 

I wouldn't be, seeing as he's pretty much spot on. There is a definite group of Leica users who won't have anything derogatory said about their precious M9's. If you haven't noticed that, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to some of the threads on this forum! Only when the next version appears, with subsequent improvements, does the penny drop for some.

[jaapv]

Yes, but when I am like 18 yo and looking to buy some sort of a camera to learn photography, I will ofcourse turn to the dealers for new cameras. Well in there there is a chance 99% of them to quote me a japanese dSLR and 1% a German made Leica. Like 99% of them are dSLR cameras made in Japan. Now who first invented the autofocus or the SLR is maybe good for historians but has little to do with the market today.

 

Doesn't that depend on the dealer? Many think in stereotypes. Blonde and high heels? Pink point and shoot. Looking bashful and comes with the wife? Bridgecamera and say it is good for kid shots. Scruffy and has a press card on his person? 1Ds with 580 flash.18 and carrying Daddy's Gold Card? Flashy prosumer DSLR and the biggest possible zoom. Fiftyish and drives Jaguar? Leica M9. If you happen to fall outside demographic preconceptions you'llwalk out with the wrong camera. All the more reason to go to a good dealer who will ask you about your photography and then discuss the pros and cons of suitable cameras with you. They are often mentioned in this forum.

[jaapv]

I wouldn't be, seeing as he's pretty much spot on. There is a definite group of Leica users who won't have anything derogatory said about their precious M9's. If you haven't noticed that, I suggest you pay a bit more attention to some of the threads on this forum! Only when the next version appears, with subsequent improvements, does the penny drop for some.

 

Simply not true. When I pointed out factual errors in Michael Kamber's negative M8 review I got roasted. Nobody here has protested about negativism. We are talking about the cluelessness displayed in the piece. It is shallow, partly factually wrong and written for readers who have no idea about the product. Had he written a well-founded negative review it would have been a completely different reception.

 

There is a group of Leica bashers on the forum as well. They are remarkebly absent from this thread. Why? Because they don't want to be embarrassed with Digiloyd.

[Dabow]

 

Simply not true. When I pointed out factual errors in Michael Kamber's negative M8. Review I got roasted. Nobody here has protested about nagativism. We are talking about the cluenesless displayed in the piece. Had he written a well-founded negative review it would havebeen a completely different reception.

 

I wasn't. I was referring to that comment alone, which I see as pretty accurate, based on my own experiences. Everyone has and will continue to have their own opinions on any given camera. However, with Leica, any negativity leveled at the current model is frequently met with a 'how dare you' attitude. Not by all, appreciated, but the knee-jerk fraternity does exist, you can't possibly deny that.

[Dabow]

There is a group of Leica bashers on the forum as well. They are remarkebly absent from this thread. Why? Because they don't want to be embarrassed with Digiloyd.

 

And that's just inaccurate presumption. There have been a few on this thread who have agreed with some of DL's comments, me included. Perhaps the 'can do no wrong' frat are just shouting the loudest. I don't agree with al of DL's comments, but he's entitled to his opinions, some of which I firmly agree with.

 

Btw, if you find yourself embarrassed by what someone else says, then there's something wrong somewhere. Disagree by all means, but why should you care what someone else thinks unless you feel that feigning embarrassment places you on some form of intellectually superior level, which it certainly doesn't.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I haven' t seen any how dare you in this thread. Just: how can somebody write such a foolish piece.

[jaapv]

And that's just inaccurate presumption. There have been a few on this thread who have agreed with some of DL's comments, me included. Perhaps the 'can do no wrong' frat are just shouting the loudest. I don't agree with al of DL's comments, but he's entitled to his opinions, some of which I firmly agree with.

 

Btw, if you find yourself embarrassed by what someone else says, then there's something wrong somewhere. Disagree by all means, but why should you care what someone else thinks unless you feel that feigning embarrassment places you on some form of intellectually superior level, which it certainly doesn't.

 

Doug is, of course, you are surely aware, well placed to feel embarrassed for a colleague well-known photographer. I would join him in being surprised at somebody who cannot be presumed to be an incompetent reviewer to write an open letter that is a rehash of rookie comments on this forum. That he happens to make sense in part of it does not make him immune to disqualifying himself.

I would not associate the posters on this thread that have pointed out that not all of Loyd's points are wrong-which I agree with- with Leica bashers

[diogenis]

Yes, you're entirely within your right to apply your own meaning to words and to use false facts in your arguments.

 

But then, we're entitled to point out where your argument falls flat because of the facts which aren't true and the words which mean other things.

 

The SLR in its current form was invented and built in Germany, not in Japan as you stated. Magnification and diopter adjustment are possible improvements to the RF while RF patch in two directions and focus confirmation are not.

 

The Wikipedia has a very nice article on Design which does not require any x-ray vision to understand.

 

I dont like jumping into conclusions as to what is possible or not in that mechanism, however diopter adjustment and magnification could be a nice start for a better optical VF and this already means an IMPROVED VF. Second, Leica has proved to be very resourceful when it needs to innovate so, you never really know what they gonna make next.

 

Wikipedia has a nice article on design, but again, when I'm on the market for a camera I don't have the engineering plans nor xray glasses to compare an SLR against a Leica.

I can only trust my senses and simple stuff like how big, how light, how costly, how fast, how do I see, does it make good photos? and that stuff.

 

That is all I wanted to say, like it or not.

[Dabow]

I haven' t seen any how dare you in this thread. Just: how can somebody write such a foolish piece.

 

Perhaps you need to utilise intuition a bit more then Jaap Oh, and it's not just this thread.

[Dabow]

Doug is, of course, you are surely aware, well placed to feel embarrassed for a colleague well-known photographer. I would join him in being surprised at somebody who cannot be presumed to be an incompetent reviewer to write an open letter that is a rehash of rookie comments on this forum. That he happens to make sense in part of it does not make him immune to disqualifying himself.

I would not associate the posters on this thread that have pointed out that not all of Loyd's points are wrong-which I agree with- with Leica bashers

 

Perhaps DL's frustration was showing through, which I can certainly relate to - what could have been great, etc... Don't just read the lines, read through them. I've read most of DL's online articles and in a way appreciate where he is coming from. I also believe there are some that travel, on this forum, in disguise.

 

It's one great conspiracy you know

[pop]

I dont like jumping into conclusions as to what is possible or not in that mechanism

 

It's not "jumping to conclusions" if you bother and find out how the RF in a Leica works.

 

It's an ancient principle and it works by merging the images of two "eyes" which are side by side. Therefore, it can detect vertical edges but not horizontal ones. If you want to detect both horizontal and vertical edges at the same time you either have to add a third eye or arrange the two eyes along a diagonal instead of side by side.

 

It's the same shortcoming your eyes have, by the way. Try and focus your eyes on something which consists of horizontal lines only or on evenly spaced vertical lines. You will become cross-eyed.

 

Focus confirmation can not be added to the RF unless you discard the RF and re-invent a device with similar purpose from scratch. Yes, there are potential solutions such as adding a small video camera to the inside of the RF. I don't think the result would be affordable at all.

 

when I'm on the market for a camera I don't have the engineering plans nor xray glasses to compare an SLR against a Leica.

I can only trust my senses and simple stuff like how big, how light, how costly, how fast, how do I see, does it make good photos? and that stuff.

 

In that case, I would recommend a dSLR for you. It will make very good pictures right from the beginning. You can use a wide range of focal lengths, you can use zoom lenses and if you buy wisely it will even be lighter than a Leica because it will be made of much lighter materials. You will be able to see at a glance what will fit into the image and what will not. That, however, will be immaterial as you will have enough resolution so that you can discard the parts of the image you don't want. Also, once you feel you might have outgrown your first camera, it will be old and not valuable any more.

 

It might also make you proud to own a camera which has so many more pixels and features than the cameras of the elderly stupid people who are set in their ways and can't seem to adapt to modern technology.

[mjh]

Simply not true. When I pointed out factual errors in Michael Kamber's negative M8 review I got roasted. Nobody here has protested about negativism.

As a matter of fact this very forum is my main source of negative opinions on Leica cameras of all kinds. Wanna hear what’s wrong with Leica products? It’s one-stop shopping here!

[mwilliamsphotography]

I've got that and I know what a rangefinder camera does vs. other methods of viewing and focusing. (I've probably owned 30 or more RF cameras.) But it seems to me to go way beyond being attached to just the rangefinder unless it mostly has to do with it being more or less the only one to choose from. (If you want to shoot digitally.) There have been countless rangefinder cameras on the market but I haven't seen them generate the feelings people have towards their Leicas.

 

Maybe that has to do with supporting and defending pretty much the last manufacturer and fearing that any change may somehow polute the purity of the experience. Now I may be off track but if I felt that attached to rangefinder focusing, I'd want Leica to throw everything they can into this camera system to make it as up to date and as versatile as possible in every conceivable way that they could do it providing the price didn't go up significantly. Even if it is just as basic as adding an adjustable diopter or more complex such as having possibly a larger zoom viewfinder that could be interchanged with the basic one. (I bet Leica has already worked on many ways to change the rangefinder/viewfinder and other things as it is hard for me to picture German engineers who don't want to design and employ the most modern products and technology.) That would help ensure there would be a wider market for it and keep it viable. Plus if the camera had an optional clip on EVF for instance, some people could do everything with the single Leica M system and not need to also have a DSLR. Thus they could more easily justify the high cost.

 

That is why I threw out the idea of electronic rangefinder linkage and the posibility of several types of removable finders. A removable rangefinder and viewfinder would be very traditional for a Leica and is nothing new. But the resistance to these suggestions shows that the attachment is more than to simply having an excellent rangefinder/optical viewfinder experience to not wanting the camera to be changed much at all and keep it "simple." So clearly there is a lot more to it than just wanting rangefinder focusing as I doubt that these same users would want a 5DII that has the M's rangefinder/viewfinder and its own line of lenses.

 

It will remain to be seen what direction Leica goes with this but at minimum all electronic cameras get updated periodically to improve basic performance speed of operation and cost of construction. Some minor and certainly major changes may have to wait until Leica perceives a market for them. But when I was a kid getting into photography in the early 60s, I'd look at everythng Leica made and what it could do and the thought of "simple" never crossed my mind.

 

Alan, your premise assumes all M9 users feel the rangefinder needs extensive improvement. Save an adjustable diopter, I'm fine with both my M9s ... and even an adjustable diopter would just be a convenience so I wouldn't have to fiddle with finding the right correction as my eyes age. A better LCD read-out wouldn't hurt, but for me that has little to nothing to do with the M shooting experience.

 

From the beginning of my rangefinder trek, I never saw the camera as a do-all piece of gear ... 28mm, 35mm and 50mm being the most used optics by a huge margin. It's a specialist tool in a world of generalists choices. What is wrong with a specialized photographic tool? Why must it be more?

 

I get the feeling that your notion of "simple" is quite different from mine. I think you mean easy ... which the M is not and never has been ... until you master it ... then it reveals its simple charms. This isn't the application of technology and engineering design like that of a computerized washing machine or Dyson vacuum cleaner that makes life easier. Photography isn't a chore, and making it easier isn't necessarily the goal that everyone seeks. In this case, simple means direct, unfettered with distractions, dedicated, focused purpose ... most certainly not a no-brainer choice.

 

The marketing landscape is littered with defunct photographic products that stepped up their game in an attempt to be more than their core appeal and specialized functional attributes in order to sell more to a wider market. As I mentioned, they are gone and Leica is still here.

 

I also dabbled in other rangefinders over the years, if nothing more than out of curiosity. In some way or another they all fell short of the M experience. Hard to define, but a real feeling none-the-less.

 

Now, the M9 is the only FF digital rangefinder game in town. That in itself is testimony to the enduring relationship with users of a M.

 

I assure you I am not techno-phobic in any way. I have a NEX5 and am pretty darned good at using it ... I even bought a Sony A55 to goof around with and experience the current state-of-the-art stuff (then sold it) ... I've used a Canon 1DsMK-III (gone) ... a Nikon D3&D3X (gone) ... all replaced with a Sony A900 that I found to be simpler to use and better results straight out if the camera compared to my Canons and Nikons. I currently use Hassey's state-of-the-art H4D/60 with their technologically transforming True Focus APL which I use to good effect for commercial work ... my studio and work stations are pretty up to date. I even now have a Leica S2 that is amazingly simple to use for a DSLR type camera.

 

None of the above has anything to do with how I relate to the Leica M, nor do I feel a burning need to have all the bells and whistles of the other more generalists tools. The notion that the M could be a single choice Swiss Army knife never entered my mined. Besides, given Leicas's pricing, that would most likely cost a lot more to pull off than buying a complete 5DMK-II system for the occasional need for a generalists application.

 

-Marc

 

(Anyway, interesting discussion ... I respect your views and opinions a great deal and do read them thoughtfully even if I don't agree with some of them).

[diogenis]

It's not "jumping to conclusions" if you bother and find out how the RF in a Leica works.

 

It's an ancient principle and it works by merging the images of two "eyes" which are side by side. Therefore, it can detect vertical edges but not horizontal ones. If you want to detect both horizontal and vertical edges at the same time you either have to add a third eye or arrange the two eyes along a diagonal instead of side by side.

 

Focus confirmation can not be added to the RF unless you discard the RF and re-invent a device with similar purpose from scratch. Yes, there are potential solutions such as adding a small video camera to the inside of the RF. I don't think the result would be affordable at all.

 

So, what previously was considered a mechanism trapped in oblivion and canned for like 50 yrs. now you admit that there maybe ways of doing things again. Well that's what I am saying too you know and it's called R&D. And this is done by engineers Philip, that truly innovate instead of just pushing papers left or right. So, it's not for us consumers to define how things need be done but to merely ask for features. ok?

In that case, I would recommend a dSLR for you. It will make very good pictures right from the beginning. You can use a wide range of focal lengths, you can use zoom lenses and if you buy wisely it will even be lighter than a Leica because it will be made of much lighter materials. You will be able to see at a glance what will fit into the image and what will not. That, however, will be immaterial as you will have enough resolution so that you can discard the parts of the image you don't want. Also, once you feel you might have outgrown your first camera, it will be old and not valuable any more.

 

It might also make you proud to own a camera which has so many more pixels and features than the cameras of the elderly stupid people who are set in their ways and can't seem to adapt to modern technology.

 

Don't recommend this to me, because I have my M and am really happy with it, so tyvm. Also, for your information this is exactly the case for the largest part of the world we live in, so I would suggest that you drop sarcasm which you obviously grew up with your age apparently.

[pop]

... but to merely ask for features. ok? ...

 

OK. Ask, and you'll be given.

[diogenis]

It's a thread about asking. I dont carre about receiving, RF works fine I just can't accept it cannot get any better.

However this one I don't get:

It's the same shortcoming your eyes have, by the way. Try and focus your eyes on something which consists of horizontal lines only or on evenly spaced vertical lines. You will become cross-eyed.

 

Our eyes focus in an entirely different way, using contrast

[pop]

Our eyes focus in an entirely different way, using contrast

 

You're quite right. I should have written "converge". However, the brain appears to compute the distance to things up to - perhaps - 2m from the angle of convergence.

 

This is the similarity between the RF with two "windows" and yourself with two eyes.

[Xmas]

Doesn't that depend on the dealer?

 

Yes it normally depends on the dealer stock.

 

Many dealers now only sell digital cameras and they will never recommend a film camera as they may have none in their shop even 2nd hand, their sales people may not know what a film camera is, or even what a Leica is - not included on their training course.

 

They advise buy this or that, this on special offer, rebate on that...

 

Lomo shops only sell Lomo cameras and refurbed FSU cameras, the shop assistants are shop assistants, so they recommend...

 

RedDot (an advertiser on forum) only sells Leica cameras e.g. X1, M (film or digital) and Barnacks cameras. Ivor has been selling cameras for while now.

 

People on photographic training courses might not be told about plate cameras, film cameras or Leicas.

 

People on the street mistake my film M for a Digital M cept when they catch me changing film. Few people recognise an M.

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[terrycioni]

Funny thing - I read the 10 ways open letter, I read this thread end to end, then I grabbed my Rangefinder full frame Leica M9 and went out and shot (working on a small NGO project) and lo and behold the humble M9 worked as I expected it to work.

 

As I reflect on the M9 certainly I agree there could be improvements, but that said it is the smallest full frame camera in my cabinet which makes it almost invaluable. (I have an X100 - and it is no match for the full frame M9 - you can read the dpreview extensive list of needed fixes firmware and otherwise - in their extensive review).

 

When I need a DSLR with long lenses, zoom lenses or for Macro I use a Nikon - it could be a Canon whatever is your pleasure. I always come home from those shoots looking for the 'Icy Patch' for my sore back and wish these DSLR and lenses weren't so big, but that is my problem and I realize many enjoy the big honk'n kit bag.

 

I believe any M9 user could write an HONEST less flipant 10 ways to improve the M9 open letter. I am sure that camera is on the drawing board today - and will be called the M10 or M11 and even then it won't be almost perfect.

 

Best regards to all. Terry