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

[denoir]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

No, I suspect that the reason why so many members are staying away from this thread are the same why I have not commented until now: they're too embarrassed about the the people here for whom Leica is a religious cult. A bunch of the posts on first pages of this thread are enough to turn your stomach. Fortunately several people like Zlatko who have a firm grip on reality have also chimed in raising the level of this thread.

 

The same goes for these forums in general - there is a hardcore kernel of members that can't stand any criticisms of anything Leica, but there are also plenty of users that see things more objectively. The irony is that if the Leica "loyalists" had their way and if Leica actually listened to them, the company would have been gone long ago. Leica is doing well right now because of their transition to digital - something the loyalists rejected as an outrage and a sacrilege before the M8 was announced.

 

As somebody who uses the M9 and the M6 and loves both, I can say that I definitely agree with many of the points Lloyd Chambers raises. I'm not sold the EVF idea - as that could actually detract from the nature of an M rangefinder. However, if it could be done that you could have some sort of hybrid where you can switch between a regular viewfinder with rangefinder focusing + frame lines and a high res EVF.. why not. His comment about the price is not realistic for a number of reasons but he is on the mark with the rest of the points with some being more relevant, some less. Jacking up the resolution may not be a critically needed improvement but a better LCD certainly is.

 

Leica can't exist in a technological vacuum - they've tried that before and it almost ruined the company. That doesn't mean that they should produce yet another plastic mass market camera that tries to compete with the large camera companies. That would ruin the company as well. What they need to do is to update the camera technology but retain the unique character and quality of the M line of cameras.

 

The reason for why Lloyd Chambers wrote that letter is not because he thinks the M9 is a bad camera. On the contrary, he has kept one for over a year and uses it on a regular basis and he repeatedly points out how good the Leica M lenses are. He wrote it because he thinks - and I agree with him - that it could be made better.

 

I use my M9 for about 90% of my photography. If Leica introduced an improved display and live view I could extend that to 100% and ditch my DSLR gear. Although I do have some AF lenses and some longer lenses, in practice I stick to a bunch of Zeiss ZE manual focus glass with the longest lens being 100mm. So for all practical purposes I could entirely switch to using the M9.. except that I can't. Because of the low resolution LCD, no live view, the limited max exposure and the clipping of highlights I have to resort to using my 5DII when doing night time landscape photography. I hate having to do it, but the M9 doesn't cut it. In fact any type of tripod based work is far more convenient using a DSLR - and there is no reason why that should have to be so in the future.

 

With some improvements that would in no way change the M character these issues could be solved. There may never be such a thing as a perfect camera but with some improvements over the M9, the M10 would come pretty damn close to it.

[AlanG]

Alan, your premise assumes all M9 users feel the rangefinder needs extensive improvement.

 

I thought I was putting forward the opposite argument. That posts on this site lead me to feel that there is enough resistance to significant change that Leica has its hands tied to some degree. (If they listen to these views.) Gradual evolution of the electronics, as long as they don't include adding live view, seems OK by most. I think that further development of the rangefinder has not been much of a priority for Leica or perhaps many other companies over the past 50 years or so. (Back in the 60s, Nikon canceled plans for a camera that had a new rangefinder/viewfinder.) So I can't say what is actually possible today beyond some simple changes.

 

I bet that over the past few years Leica has been doing a lot more R&D on AF than on rangefinders.

 

As long as Leica is the only game in town and if they can keep selling new models to a loyal user base and some others, who are not demanding many changes, they may be able to sell future models that only represent gradual evolution of performance without new features or any change to the RF. I question how long this can go on, but assume that Leica knows best.

[wildlightphoto]

It must take a very large ego to think that an 'open letter' will in any way influence a company's engineering and management. Does he honestly believe that he knows more than the company's management and engineers? Does he believe that there are no projects hidden behind locked doors that Leica is evaluating for the next several models? Does he believe that Leica's management and engineers have no clue what the competition is?

 

Leica's profits are at record levels and demand exceeds supply. I'd say the company's managers and engineers have more than a clue how to run their business, even if they make no products that meet my needs.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

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.

 

Dave (and others who believe there are more Leica nuts here than there are anywhere else for any other company), really...

 

What do you agree with in Lloyd's rant? The fact that a manual focus camera is hard to focus for people with poor eyesight? The fact that an improved sensor with lower noise and better DR would be nice?

 

I agree with those things too. As Doug pointed out, I'm sure Leica agrees with that as well!

 

You think those things justify an "open letter to Leica?" I don't; at the very least the whole rant seems motivated by weirdness. And when Lloyd doesn't allow comments to his blog? Or charges $$ for his "proof" of some of the weird assertions about the M9 ever made (ISO 640 is "a hope and a prayer?" No 14bpp uncompressed DNGs?--what do you think about those assertions, Dave?)

 

So when you actually question him on what appears to be factual errors, ('cos I have), he says that he's justified his findings in a 67 page report--that you can buy, of course

 

So who will buy that report? M9 owners? No. They either know better and disagree, or they've already sold their camera. Only the people gullible enough to think his rant is somehow reflective of the camera (and, again, not all of it is wrong by a long stretch, but only the mostly uninteresting parts).

 

That means prospective Leica buyers. If they believe this stuff, then they're less likely to buy an M9, which means, of course, enhancements to an M10 are less likely to happen. So why go on about this? Because the answer to wrong speech is more speech-- argument in other words. Since Lloyd doesn't want to entertain that directly on his blog--his 67 page word is law, in effect, over there--or release his findings freely, actual Leica owners are going to speak up!

 

There's nothing wrong--or unique--at all about that. And there is really not much "you daren't say a word against Leica" here compared with, say, the internecine battles that Canon and Nikon users go through. Here we just want Leica to be successful. Why shouldn't we defend the facts when people make false, or hidden, or otherwise motivated assertions?

 

I'm sorry, but Lloyd's approach just seems wrong to me. If Lloyd had information he wanted to engage Leica with, there are dozens of ways to do that in a truly open fashion.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} Not seen any pros with M9 & DLSR yet.

{snipped}

 

Hmmm. Not sure what your point is here Noel... I know quite a few pros shooting both an M9 and a dSLR.

 

Here's one whose work I like very much, and someone who wrote a similar piece to Lloyd's 2 years ago--and in an altogether more open, honest, direct and useful fashion:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/185593-my-m9-review.html

[Dabow]

It must take a very large ego to think that an 'open letter' will in any way influence a company's engineering and management. Does he honestly believe that he knows more than the company's management and engineers?

 

This made me laugh Why does it have to be about ego? Why can't it be about offering constructive product criticism in an attempt to better future versions. Looking at some of the daft decisions that have been made over the years by some companies, I think it's not that difficult for a person who uses the equipment to know more than company management to be honest. They tend to be numbers people, the bottom line rather than the product being all that it can be. Pretty evident by the crappy LCD and sluggish electronics in the M9 today - you can bet that was a cost cutting exercise! Engineers will give their input, but corners will still be cut. The tricky part is balancing improvements against profit. However, I'm a firm believer in a 'build it and they will come' philosophy. After all, Leica cameras aren't exactly cheap and yet people still buy them. Improve the camera, price goes up a bit as a result, you think people will suddenly stop buying it? I'd love to know actually what the profit is on an M9, after initial R&D, etc. is factored in of course.

 

Does he believe that there are no projects hidden behind locked doors that Leica is evaluating for the next several models? Does he believe that Leica's management and engineers have no clue what the competition is?

 

Do you believe that not providing feedback on a camera from a user perspective is helpful in ensuring the company is heading in the right direction wrt development? There may be projects, but are they the right ones? How many of the people who make design decisions within Leica are or have been professional photographers? How many of them are straight from management or tech school?

 

Leica's profits are at record levels and demand exceeds supply. I'd say the company's managers and engineers have more than a clue how to run their business, even if they make no products that meet my needs.

 

As I don't own shares in Leica I don't really care. I'm not seeing any of their profits. I am buying their products though, and that's what matters to me. Of course the profits, some anyway, get fed back into the company... so my concern is that that money is going towards making a better product in the long run. The other issue is this supply and demand thing - you have to wonder how many customers they lose who get fed up with the endless wait for Leica gear. It is more than a bit ridiculous and I often wonder if it's deliberate.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, I suspect that the reason why so many members are staying away from this thread are the same why I have not commented until now: they're too embarrassed about the the people here for whom Leica is a religious cult. A bunch of the posts on first pages of this thread are enough to turn your stomach. Fortunately several people like Zlatko who have a firm grip on reality have also chimed in raising the level of this thread.

 

The same goes for these forums in general - there is a hardcore kernel of members that can't stand any criticisms of anything Leica, but there are also plenty of users that see things more objectively. The irony is that if the Leica "loyalists" had their way and if Leica actually listened to them, the company would have been gone long ago. Leica is doing well right now because of their transition to digital - something the loyalists rejected as an outrage and a sacrilege before the M8 was announced.

 

As somebody who uses the M9 and the M6 and loves both, I can say that I definitely agree with many of the points Lloyd Chambers raises. I'm not sold the EVF idea - as that could actually detract from the nature of an M rangefinder. However, if it could be done that you could have some sort of hybrid where you can switch between a regular viewfinder with rangefinder focusing + frame lines and a high res EVF.. why not. His comment about the price is not realistic for a number of reasons but he is on the mark with the rest of the points with some being more relevant, some less. Jacking up the resolution may not be a critically needed improvement but a better LCD certainly is.

 

Leica can't exist in a technological vacuum - they've tried that before and it almost ruined the company. That doesn't mean that they should produce yet another plastic mass market camera that tries to compete with the large camera companies. That would ruin the company as well. What they need to do is to update the camera technology but retain the unique character and quality of the M line of cameras.

 

The reason for why Lloyd Chambers wrote that letter is not because he thinks the M9 is a bad camera. On the contrary, he has kept one for over a year and uses it on a regular basis and he repeatedly points out how good the Leica M lenses are. He wrote it because he thinks - and I agree with him - that it could be made better.

 

I use my M9 for about 90% of my photography. If Leica introduced an improved display and live view I could extend that to 100% and ditch my DSLR gear. Although I do have some AF lenses and some longer lenses, in practice I stick to a bunch of Zeiss ZE manual focus glass with the longest lens being 100mm. So for all practical purposes I could entirely switch to using the M9.. except that I can't. Because of the low resolution LCD, no live view, the limited max exposure and the clipping of highlights I have to resort to using my 5DII when doing night time landscape photography. I hate having to do it, but the M9 doesn't cut it. In fact any type of tripod based work is far more convenient using a DSLR - and there is no reason why that should have to be so in the future.

 

With some improvements that would in no way change the M character these issues could be solved. There may never be such a thing as a perfect camera but with some improvements over the M9, the M10 would come pretty damn close to it.

The clear tendency of the posts that "turn your stomach" is that Lloyd is not that they attack him for negativity, which is quite limited if any btw, but that they are disappointed at the rookie mistakes and opinions he voices. If it takes a hard kernel to point that out, it is a rather sad comment on the rest of our members...

[terrycioni]

Hmmm. Not sure what your point is here Noel... I know quite a few pros shooting both an M9 and a dSLR.

 

Here's one whose work I like very much, and someone who wrote a similar piece to Lloyd's 2 years ago--and in an altogether more open, honest, direct and useful fashion:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/185593-my-m9-review.html

 

To add some support to Jamie's point - a couple of days ago (the local pro hockey team is in the Stanley Cup final) I was standing beside a very senior wire service shooter in downtown Vancouver - with 50,000 people on the street. He had a Leica M8 (could have been an M9) and a bevy of Canon DSLR gear. I have seen this over and over again - we had the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and I saw the DSLR Leica M digital configuration often.

[wildlightphoto]

This made me laugh Why does it have to be about ego?

 

What else could it be? He can point to the changes in the next model(s) and tell the gullible that his 'open letter' (with closed responses) was the reason Leica made the changes.

 

Why can't it be about offering constructive product criticism in an attempt to better future versions.

 

If he truly believes that he knows better than Leica does he can offer his constructive critique privately. On a public forum it's all ego-inflation.

 

 

The other issue is this supply and demand thing - you have to wonder how many customers they lose who get fed up with the endless wait for Leica gear. It is more than a bit ridiculous and I often wonder if it's deliberate.

 

Leica's production is running at full capacity. The only way to increase supply is a substantial investment in tooling, hiring and training. In light of this Lloyd's suggestion to reduce prices is clueless.

[Dabow]

Dave (and others who believe there are more Leica nuts here than there are anywhere else for any other company), really...

 

I don't remember saying that

 

What do you agree with in Lloyd's rant? The fact that a manual focus camera is hard to focus for people with poor eyesight? The fact that an improved sensor with lower noise and better DR would be nice? I agree with those things too. As Doug pointed out, I'm sure Leica agrees with that as well!

 

Presumption, plus are they actually doing anything about it? That would move us on from presumption to guesswork. I don't see any harm in reinforcing the issue, because there are existing problems that need to be addressed, which we agree on. The problem is you see that quite a bit of this was raised with the M8, and not much was done about it, so confidence isn't high.

 

You think those things justify an "open letter to Leica?" I don't; at the very least the whole rant seems motivated by weirdness. And when Lloyd doesn't allow comments to his blog? Or charges $$ for his "proof" of some of the weird assertions about the M9 ever made (ISO 640 is "a hope and a prayer?" No 14bpp uncompressed DNGs?--what do you think about those assertions, Dave?)

 

I do believe a company needs to be called out from time to time. I said I agreed with most of DL's comments, not all. We (some of us anyway) air our views quite openly in this forum on what we think are issues with the M9 (and M8 before it). People are quite free to read this forum. People are quite entitled to offer their opinion and decide for themselves what is useful or not. As a company, Leica should respect user feedback, open or otherwise.

 

So who will buy that report? M9 owners? No. They either know better and disagree, or they've already sold their camera. Only the people gullible enough to think his rant is somehow reflective of the camera (and, again, not all of it is wrong by a long stretch, but only the mostly uninteresting parts).

 

How can you disagree with a report you haven't read? Surely if 'not all of it is wrong by a long stretch' then his 'rant' is reflective in part on the camera...

 

That means prospective Leica buyers. If they believe this stuff, then they're less likely to buy an M9, which means, of course, enhancements to an M10 are less likely to happen. So why go on about this? Because the answer to wrong speech is more speech-- argument in other words. Since Lloyd doesn't want to entertain that directly on his blog--his 67 page word is law, in effect, over there--or release his findings freely, actual Leica owners are going to speak up!

 

I think you're taking this far too seriously. This is one man's opinion, and one man's only. Others choose to agree or ignore it. You've already labelled anyone who believes it as 'gullible', so what's the loss? Sales to people who are easily influenced? Just because he doesn't allow you to vent spleen on his website isn't cause to get hot under the collar. Invite him into this discussion if it bothers you so much.

 

Here we just want Leica to be successful. Why shouldn't we defend the facts when people make false, or hidden, or otherwise motivated assertions?

 

Interesting words... otherwise motivated how? Do I smell a conspiracy theory about to raise it's ugly head based purely on your partial disagreement with DL's letter? I want Leica to be successful and produce a camera that will ensure they continue to be so, so that not only company executives benefit at the annual shareholders meeting, but those who actually use the equipment they produce as well.

 

I'm sorry, but Lloyd's approach just seems wrong to me. If Lloyd had information he wanted to engage Leica with, there are dozens of ways to do that in a truly open fashion.

 

Define 'truly open'. Do you mean in a manner that allows every Leica user who disagrees with his opinion to publicly crucify him? Isn't that what's already happening here?

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Define 'truly open'. Do you mean in a manner that allows every Leica user who disagrees with his opinion to publicly crucify him? Isn't that what's already happening here?

 

With all due respect, your definition of crucifixion and mine vary considerably.

[Dabow]

What else could it be? He can point to the changes in the next model(s) and tell the gullible that his 'open letter' (with closed responses) was the reason Leica made the changes.

 

If he truly believes that he knows better than Leica does he can offer his constructive critique privately. On a public forum it's all ego-inflation.

 

Leica's production is running at full capacity. The only way to increase supply is a substantial investment in tooling, hiring and training. In light of this Lloyd's suggestion to reduce prices is clueless.

 

Look, we can all make assumptions about how Leica run their business, but unless you actually work for them at a certain level you're just farting in the wind.

 

If Leica's production is running at full capacity (and if it is, it's been doing so for a very long time, so it's not just a blip on the radar) then they need to do something about it. Don't improve the camera, people will walk away. Don't improve delivery times, people will walk away. Invest in production, invest in development. How much money do they have for this? Who knows. THESE are management decisions. Stand still, and the World walks past you. It's already a step or two ahead.

[Dabow]

With all due respect, your definition of crucifixion and mine vary considerably.

 

A couple of planks of wood, a few nails and some rotten fruit. I doubt it

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

How can you disagree with a report you haven't read? Surely if 'not all of it is wrong by a long stretch' then his 'rant' is reflective in part on the camera...

{snipped}

 

Oh, and this and the "otherwise motivated" comment deserves a response:

 

1) I don't disagree or agree with the 67 page analysis. I've outlined, in detail, what I disagree with in the rant (the hyperbole on ISO and DNG compression and responsiveness, which seems factually wrong). The boring parts of Lloyd's "calling Leica out--better sensor or focusing" are all, well, kinda boring.

 

2) I can only guess what Lloyd's ultimate motivations are, but I know they're not JUST to produce a better product. I do know that in order to disagree with him in detail I must pay him for the privilege of doing so.

 

I'm not going to do that, thanks; I use my M9 and have put tens of thousands of shots through it. Nothing he says is going to change my own fundamental work with it, or my own assessment of its strengths and flaws (yes, it has lots).

 

And I don't need to vent spleen; nor do I need to be thought an expert because I write 67 pages of opinion on something

[Jamie Roberts]

A couple of planks of wood, a few nails and some rotten fruit. I doubt it

 

You're way off, and now bordering on the offensive (to me) to boot.

[wildlightphoto]

Look, we can all make assumptions about how Leica run their business, but unless you actually work for them at a certain level you're just farting in the wind.

 

This is what Lloyd is doing.

[pico]

[...]

 

I will continue to assert that Leica should concentrate on making more of what they are, not less of what they are:

 

Keep the rangefinder and apply any technology that can improve it without undermining its primary relationship to how the rangefinder photographer sees the world.

 

Well said.

 

Put an adjustable diopter in the freaking camera. With no statistics to back me up, I'd still assert that an inaccurate diopter system is a chief culprit regarding inaccurate focusing.

 

My wife has a Leica III (I think I got that right) and it has a little adjustable diopter - or something - at the eyepiece and I was startled to find that it really helped me focus more accurately. If that thing isn't a diopter, then what is it, and why did Leica drop it?

[Dabow]

You're way off, and now bordering on the offensive (to me) to boot.

 

Why on Earth would you find that offensive!?

 

Then again, perhaps that speaks volumes. My original comment wasn't even aimed at you, rather the masses. Feel free to take it personally if you wish.

[Dabow]

This is what Lloyd is doing.

 

So you thought you'd follow his example and disagree with what he's doing at the same time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jamie Roberts]

Why on Earth would you find that offensive!?

 

Then again, perhaps that speaks volumes. My original comment wasn't even aimed at you, rather the masses. Feel free to take it personally if you wish.

 

I'm sorry--you need to follow threads more closely. You were replying to me directly about your idea of Lloyd's "crucifixion." I don't take much personally, actually--but you really should watch, perhaps, how flippant you are.