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

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

So you agree that Lloyd is farting into the wind and you're defending him?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[charlesphoto99]

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.

 

My wife and two year old were up for a weekend getaway and ended up on Robson Street Friday night. Craziness! My two year old now knows how to say "Go Canucks!" Lots of fun.

 

Anyway, I'm a pro who uses the M9 alongside a Nikon D3. Not so unusual. Unless one makes the mistake of thinking wire photographers are the only pros out there, and even then they sometimes have an M along as Terry notes above. There are lots of kind of pro photographers. I shoot mostly editorial, some commercial "lifestyle", ad work, etc. The M9 works great, the Nikon sometimes better, or worse, depending on the moment. It's all good.

[Dabow]

 

So you agree that Lloyd is farting into the wind and you're defending him?

 

You see, yet again I don't remember saying that. I just recall summarizing your rather shaky and somewhat contradictory stance on the matter. I agree (in part) and disagree (in part) with Lloyd. I'm defending (if anything) his right to free speech and his opinion which has you sooooo offended.

[Dabow]

 

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.

 

No, I think it is you that needs to follow more closely. I was replying to you as an individual with a comment on how those so offended by his letter may like to treat him, given the opportunity. Although some seem to be managing it quite well in here. Perhaps you need to look at how sensitive you are. I note you're still avoiding what it is that has offended you so!

 

Anyway, this is off topic for this post. PM me if you decide to let me know.

[wildlightphoto]

You see, yet again I don't remember saying that. I just recall summarizing your rather shaky and somewhat contradictory stance on the matter. I agree (in part) and disagree (in part) with Lloyd. I'm defending (if anything) his right to free speech and his opinion which has you sooooo offended.

 

Here are your words:

 

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

 

So if you believe that I'm farting into the wind, and that I'm following his example, then (your words) he's also farting into the wind.

 

I'm not offended by Lloyd's 'open letter', I'm embarrassed for him. Leica currently makes no photographic products that interest me, I have no personal stake in the company, in fact I'm pissed off that they dropped the R system but I understand it from a business perspective. As an engineer all I care about is accuracy. By posting an 'open letter' Lloyd is inviting rebuttal.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} I agree (in part) and disagree (in part) with Lloyd. I'm defending (if anything) his right to free speech and his opinion which has you sooooo offended.

 

No, Lloyd's free to say what he wants on his blog--we all agree. He's also free to charge for his opinion--we all agree.

 

And I'd say we all agree with some of his rant and disagree with some of it.

 

But the other side of the coin is that he does not permit argument there, and when we put forth a perfectly rational perspective--that perhaps Lloyd is not really being productive with his complaints--because they're either wrong or not well considered or not new--then people rush to his defence and start making accusations. LOL

 

As for being in contact with Leica or knowing how they're developing things, I don't think it's a stretch or a fart at all to say they will improve their next M model (M10) with regard to ISO and DR. They improved the last model update, so why not?

 

So again, your defending not very much.

 

Yes, Lloyd can rant all he likes about how hard a manual focus camera is to focus for those who can't manually focus, or about how out of date a 3 year old (at least) design is, or about how better DR and ISO would be nice.

 

Feel free to go defending that.. I'm going out to shoot.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please don't get too personal. It is not worth it.

[Jamie Roberts]

No, I think it is you that needs to follow more closely. I was replying to you as an individual with a comment on how those so offended by his letter may like to treat him, given the opportunity. Although some seem to be managing it quite well in here. Perhaps you need to look at how sensitive you are. I note you're still avoiding what it is that has offended you so!

 

Anyway, this is off topic for this post. PM me if you decide to let me know.

 

Dave, in no way whatsoever is Lloyd suffering in any significant fashion from any of this--I'm sure he's gained a subscriber or two in the process.

 

And if you don't get how insensitive your remarks may have been, or that they were directed at me (or at my comment, at any rate) then I'm not about to explain it in a PM.

[Dabow]

 

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.

 

I don't really care what you agree or disagree with to be honest, or what you find boring. You did, however, say anyone who believed the document would be gullible and in the same breath are saying that you agree with parts of it. That's the bit I didn't understand.. never mind.

 

2) I can only guess what Lloyd's ultimate motivations are, but I know they're not JUST to produce a better product.

 

Guessing and knowing in the same sentence. I'll bite anyway... HOW do you know?

 

I do know that in order to disagree with him in detail I must pay him for the privilege of doing so.

 

You can disagree with him based on what you've read so far. If he's taken the time to write a comprehensive document that he's selling to others,, why should he give you access to it for free just to justify himself? I certainly wouldn't.

 

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).

 

Yes, and there's the vote for making your own mind up.

 

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

 

You don't need to view him as an expert. If I were you, rather than get all bothered, I'd choose to ignore. Much less stressful, no?

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

Guessing and knowing in the same sentence. I'll bite anyway... HOW do you know?

 

Ahh the wonders of personal mis-reading!

 

Seriously... how do I know he has a direct motivation? Because he's charging money for the only provocative claims he's made.. Ok, fair enough, but it's disingenuous to make public claims you won't back up publically. IMO.

 

So those immediate motivations are known, Dave, at least to me. What Lloyd's ultimate motive is I neither know, nor care anything about.

 

So yes, it's all about adjectives and nuance, unfortunately. You can use "guess" and "know" in the same sentence quite substantially and successfully, you know

 

(snipped)

You can disagree with him based on what you've read so far. If he's taken the time to write a comprehensive document that he's selling to others,, why should he give you access to it for free just to justify himself? I certainly wouldn't.

 

Oh I do disagree with him with what I've read so far. and have written about that here: about ISO 320 being the highest useful ISO, about the noise levels on medium ISOs, about the inability to save a 14bpp uncompressed DNG file (not a 16bpp as is usually claimed). I mean, those are factual errors unless Lloyd can prove otherwise. Ok, so he doesn't have to give me the report for free. I don't want it anyway.. LOL!

 

But one or two words like "in my testing I've found that Leica isn't telling the truth in the camera's menu" or "In looking at this kind of chart" or whatever. Something to back up claims that seem--to me and many others--experientially and factually untrue.

 

Too much to ask as a justification for a rant? I don't think so: YMMV.

 

{snipped}

You don't need to view him as an expert. If I were you, rather than get all bothered, I'd choose to ignore. Much less stressful, no?

 

LOL I *don't* view him as an expert. I implied, if you'd read carefully, that he needed to be viewed as an expert.... ah well. My stress levels are just fine, thanks.

[Xmas]

Does he believe that Leica's management and engineers have no clue what the competition is?

They detected the Nikon F way to late, Zeiss at least had the Contarex marketed earlier, which was not competative in sales, but a SLR.

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.

Their track record has not been 100% they went to zinc top plates for a decade and removed a condenser lens for a similar interval, the good news is they (earlier) multi coated the M5 rangefinder optics.

The omitted condenser means thay were quite capable of producing a new rangefinder that did not work as well as the older one, cheaper to make though.

When Leica disclosed a light for illuminating the viewfinder frames I took my M3 into a unlit room only starlight outside, as my eyes dark adopted the first things that appeared were the frame and focus spot. Think this means that the illuminated frames were not an enhancement in performance.

So the more correct requirement is we dont want one that is less capable than the current e.g. MP one, though I'd prefer my M3, I know that is uneconomic, to manufacture, compared to the MPs, I'm going to keep the M3.

 

Noel

[Dabow]

 

Dave, in no way whatsoever is Lloyd suffering in any significant fashion from any of this--I'm sure he's gained a subscriber or two in the process.

 

And if you don't get how insensitive your remarks may have been, or that they were directed at me (or at my comment, at any rate) then I'm not about to explain it in a PM.

 

No I don't. After all, how would I, I don't know you or what you stand for. However, I do think the least you could have done is explained to me just where I overstepped the mark, if for no other reason to avoid doing so with you in future. I can second guess, but I prefer to have the facts. The fact that you're prepared to say you were offended and then not explain why shows pretty poor form IMO. As it stands, and I don't like treading on eggshells, avoidance is my only option, so you'll forgive me if I don't respond to future posts from you.

[Dabow]

 

Here are your words:

 

So if you believe that I'm farting into the wind, and that I'm following his example, then (your words) he's also farting into the wind.

 

I'm not offended by Lloyd's 'open letter', I'm embarrassed for him. Leica currently makes no photographic products that interest me, I have no personal stake in the company, in fact I'm pissed off that they dropped the R system but I understand it from a business perspective. As an engineer all I care about is accuracy. By posting an 'open letter' Lloyd is inviting rebuttal.

 

Oh for Pete's sake, seriously? Okay, I'm not prepared to bat this back and forth in a word battle of association. I know what I said, you can assume what you like around that if it makes you happy. It's probably more convenient for you to do so. Let that be an end to it. There are far more important things to discuss, like Leica actually improving their M system, rather than someone else's opinion in an open letter!

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}The fact that you're prepared to say you were offended and then not explain why shows pretty poor form IMO. As it stands, and I don't like treading on eggshells, avoidance is my only option, so you'll forgive me if I don't respond to future posts from you.

 

Dave, again, reading comprehension is key here:

 

I said your comments comparing Lloyd's treatment here to crucifixion (the whole "plank, fruit and nails" thing being not flippant at all ) bordered on the offensive, to me at least (and I'm pretty sure to others too). I didn't say I was offended.

 

OTH, there were a million ways to say what you said, but the exaggeration and lack of a little forethought, in a public forum no less, is not great nor adds to your argument.

 

So fine: don't walk on eggshells: comparing the free speech argument we're having about someone who publically posts things to a form of extreme torture tied to major religious beliefs is perhaps just a wee bit insensitive and disrespectful, no? Not to mention an abuse of metaphor, which is what *I* find borderline, to be honest.

 

And if you don't want to respond to my posts, that's just fine. I still like your work, and am sorry you're having trouble focusing your M9 the way you want to, but your defense of Lloyd's rant still doesn't convince me.

[johnloumiles]

It seems to me, everyone in this closed circuit enjoys these heated conversations. We wait around and clean dust from in between the knobs of our M and scroll down through the listless fare, "Is my viewfinder misaligned ?" "I dropped my X1 in the ocean, help!" and wait to see something to ring the bell about. Call up the troops we have a dissenter!!

 

Admit it, you like it. I guess I do to. I wrote a heartfelt ode to my camera imperfections and all. In the end though the answer has been given here in different posts at least a dozen times and as always it's somewhere in the middle: yes the camera can be improved in certain areas that are minor in the scheme of the M series, but in no way should there be wholesale changes as the camera is quite succsesful across a range of consumers (within a niche), additionally we have an emotional attachment to this amazing camera and we want to see it kept true to form.

 

We continue though, tic for tat, outthinking our opponent/fellow poster like a tedious game of chess.

[charlesphoto99]

During the Leica Wars of the early 21st century, popular blogger and reviewer Loyd Chambers, aka DigiLoyd, dropped a "dirty bomb" on Solms Germany, fulminating a war between the supposedly neutral countries of Canada and Iceland, resulting in numerous casualty misquotes and innuendos. The war ultimately ended in a draw, having bored both participants as well as observing nations to death.....

[wildlightphoto]

Oh for Pete's sake, seriously? Okay, I'm not prepared to bat this back and forth in a word battle of association. I know what I said, you can assume what you like around that if it makes you happy. It's probably more convenient for you to do so. Let that be an end to it. There are far more important things to discuss, like Leica actually improving their M system, rather than someone else's opinion in an open letter!

 

Have a nice life, Dave.

[AlanG]

It seems to me, everyone in this closed circuit enjoys these heated conversations. We wait around and clean dust from in between the knobs of our M and scroll down through the listless fare, "Is my viewfinder misaligned ?" "I dropped my X1 in the ocean, help!" and wait to see something to ring the bell about. Call up the troops we have a dissenter!!

 

Admit it, you like it. I guess I do to. I wrote a heartfelt ode to my camera imperfections and all. In the end though the answer has been given here in different posts at least a dozen times and as always it's somewhere in the middle: yes the camera can be improved in certain areas that are minor in the scheme of the M series, but in no way should there be wholesale changes as the camera is quite succsesful across a range of consumers (within a niche), additionally we have an emotional attachment to this amazing camera and we want to see it kept true to form.

 

We continue though, tic for tat, outthinking our opponent/fellow poster like a tedious game of chess.

 

I think you are into some of the psychology that is going on here which to me is way more interesting than the camera. I have seen all kinds of cameras change in a wide range of ways over the years and never saw similar concerns or complaints. Canons and Nikons used to have removable prisms and replaceable finders as a feature but I don't hear about too many people missing them. (Perhaps if there was a forum back then.)

 

For some reason more than a few Leica M owners who post here seem to agonize over the prospect of change. Whereas with many other brands owners embrace it and look forward to all kinds of "improvements." (When Nikon made a better LCD, you knew that it wouldn't be long before Canon would match it. The same for higher ISOs, AF, live view, video, IS, and more.) Understanding this difference in viewpoint will probably require me to take some classes.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[diogenis]

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.

 

Philipp, you are comparing the engineering miracle which is the eye and brain combo to something inferior.

The human eye/brain combo can focus each eye separatelly or both together. If you close one eye, you can still see with the other, but not with a RF mechanism. The second eye also is there to give depth perception, something that you cannot get with a camera with one lens.

[pop]

Philipp, you are comparing the engineering miracle which is the eye and brain combo to something inferior.

The human eye/brain combo can focus each eye separatelly or both together. If you close one eye, you can still see with the other, but not with a RF mechanism. The second eye also is there to give depth perception, something that you cannot get with a camera with one lens.

 

I agree that a photographic camera is inferior to the eyes and brains in many respects. However, my brain can not produce a permanent recording of something I happened to observe in a manner which can be shown to others.

 

I restricted the comparison to the parallel between binocular vision and the "binocular" range finder. As a matter of fact, you could guess the distance and apply your guess to the lens of your Leica. That's what the rangefinder does, and it does it much more accurately than your eyes.

 

That's the reason why the rangefinder is useless in the absence of a vertical edge, and that's one more parallel between the rangefinder and binocular vision. Convergence needs vertical edges as well, even if very short ones usually will do.