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

[Dabow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Understanding this difference in viewpoint will probably require me to take some classes.

 

And perhaps a step or two away from sanity, in some cases

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest raoul1]

A lot of what Lloyd Chambers write is simply true. The Leica M has to improve several things to become a serious tool, compared to what other camera's nowadays can do. That counts the more for professionals. Everytime it is amazing to see how members of this forum defend the Leica products, as we also could see with the M8. When the M 10 will come out, and Leica has improved some things that real photographers really need, it will indeed go the same way as with the M8. A tool quick to forget, because it had too many limitations. Too, too slow!, lousy high ISO performance and a terrible LCD screen quality.

[pop]

The Leica M has to improve several things to become a serious tool.

 

Thanks god, then, that most people who have been using the Leica M for the last half century have been content with using a toy. All hobbyists, every one of them.

 

Now will the real photographers please step forward.

[stunsworth]

...it will indeed go the same way as with the M8. A tool quick to forget, because it had too many limitations

 

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm still using my M8 four and a half years after I bought it, and I still think it's the best camera I've ever owned.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped} A tool quick to forget, because it had too many limitations. Too, too slow!, lousy high ISO performance and a terrible LCD screen quality.

 

All digital camera look pretty bad a few years after their release, in terms of features; Leicas included--though it's true they make just as good pictures as they did when they were released (and maybe a wee bit better, given how good raw converters are now).

 

So, on that score, have you tried a 1ds or D2H lately? FWIW I'd much rather have a DMR...or an M8 come to that. LOL

[Dabow]

 

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.

 

Thanks for the explanation Jamie. Funnily enough it was as I suspected. Then again, it's a common enough expression, at least where I come from. Others can choose to read into it what they will, turn it into something it isn't and therefore offend themselves (or not) as they see fit, but that's their own take on something not intended.

 

Thanks for the compliment on my work, but as I often speak my mind and have little time for certain sensibilities, perhaps best I take my leave as mentioned.

[johnloumiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A lot of what Lloyd Chambers write is simply true. The Leica M has to improve several things to become a serious tool, compared to what other camera's nowadays can do. That counts the more for professionals. Everytime it is amazing to see how members of this forum defend the Leica products, as we also could see with the M8. When the M 10 will come out, and Leica has improved some things that real photographers really need, it will indeed go the same way as with the M8. A tool quick to forget, because it had too many limitations. Too, too slow!, lousy high ISO performance and a terrible LCD screen quality.

 

Some actually prefer using a rangefinder over DSLR. Many of the worlds greatest photographers such as William Eggleston used the M to produce their work. I use the M8 to produce my work while a 60D collects dust (the camera you say should be superior).

 

Nothing is wrong with those who choose whatever path they want in life. You obviously don't have a M which is ok, but why should we believe you when you say our cameras are obsolete?

 

LFI Gallery - Neueste Uploads

[AlanG]

And perhaps a step or two away from sanity, in some cases

 

I think this happened to me a some time ago. If anyone at Leica wants to use this thread to help plan "improvements" for future cameras, they'll first have to run it by a team of experts in Vienna. "Ven did you start hating your first camera?" "At vhat age did your parents take your zecurity blanket from you?" "How does holding this camera make you feel?"

 

HEY, I'M JUST JOKING HERE ;)

 

I now feel obligated to put the word "improvements" in quotes because whatever changes come beyond better high ISO quality, a variable diopter, faster processing/reviewing, and a better LCD, some may feel it improves on the "essence of the M" and some will think it detracts from it.

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But is a Leica ever just a camera?

[Xmas]

Hi

 

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 suggest quote is false most people can do a pencil, paper drawing, with little training, have you not done art class?.

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.

Yes you can do it on height, size of face subtended etc.

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.

The leica rangefinder can use a sphere or triangle or... most things it does not need a near vertical edge, a near vertical edge can be used outisde and inside rangefinder spot, to enhabce acuity problems. The eye is the same... except for outsde/inside...

 

Noel

[Guest raoul1]

Whatever all of you say, the fact remains that compared to digital cameras of today, the Leica M 9 ( and earlier the M8) have a lot of disadvantages. There is no point in comparing too the possibilities of analogue cameras, or other useless facts. Today counts. Once again: high ISO is lousy, the camera is far too slow, the LCD screen is lousy, and the dynamic range is also not that good. So it is not strange that the majority of professionals do not use the M9. ( most certainly not in things like news photography.)

[jmkays]

I'm beginning to understand why Chambers' Diglloyd doesn't feature user comments. All that is missing from this thread is a corner booth with L. Ron Hubbard liberating souls from Thetans with his e-meter.

 

[Netiquette Disclaimer: the above allusion in no way is intended to offend participating Scientologists, Tom Cruise or baby Jesus.]

[charlesphoto99]

Whatever all of you say, the fact remains that compared to digital cameras of today, the Leica M 9 ( and earlier the M8) have a lot of disadvantages. There is no point in comparing too the possibilities of analogue cameras, or other useless facts. Today counts. Once again: high ISO is lousy, the camera is far too slow, the LCD screen is lousy, and the dynamic range is also not that good. So it is not strange that the majority of professionals do not use the M9. ( most certainly not in things like news photography.)

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah......

[IkarusJohn]

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.

 

Sorry, but no.

 

Lloyd is part of the customer base, and as cranky and ill-coonsidered as some of his proposals may be, Leica needs to listen to its customer base. If it sits in Solms saying to itself, we know best, without listening to its customers, it's dead.

 

That doesn't mean it needs to listen to every daft, half-formed idea. But it does need to listen (as I'm sure it does). They do know better than the rest of us about their cameras. They also need to understand whether or not we get it, and if we will buy what comes next. The company has enough experience of good products that weren't accepted to understand that point.

 

Cheers

John

[pop]

Whatever all of you say, the fact remains that compared to digital cameras of today, the Leica M 9 ( and earlier the M8) have a lot of disadvantages. There is no point in comparing too the possibilities of analogue cameras, or other useless facts. Today counts. Once again: high ISO is lousy, the camera is far too slow, the LCD screen is lousy, and the dynamic range is also not that good. So it is not strange that the majority of professionals do not use the M9. ( most certainly not in things like news photography.)

 

(1) Don't buy this camera if it is lacking in so many respects which are important to you.

(2) I haven't noticed lately that in news photography a high standard for image quality was required or even wanted, so news photographers can well do without Leica lenses.

(3) You might want to take notice of the fact that there are people who can easily live with what you call disadvantages on account of other properties which are - for those people - advantages.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Whatever all of you say, the fact remains that compared to digital cameras of today, the Leica M 9 ( and earlier the M8) have a lot of disadvantages. There is no point in comparing too the possibilities of analogue cameras, or other useless facts. Today counts. Once again: high ISO is lousy, the camera is far too slow, the LCD screen is lousy, and the dynamic range is also not that good. So it is not strange that the majority of professionals do not use the M9. ( most certainly not in things like news photography.)

 

A majority of professionals do not use a Canon. A majority of professionals do not use a Nikon, A majority of professionals do not use a Hasselblad. A majority of professionals do not use a Phase One. A Majority of professionals do not use a Pentax. They use what the job calls for.

 

I don't get why people evoke the title of "professional". Many, if not most professionals do not use the latest greatest anything ... mostly it is infected enthusiasts that are concerned with all that.

 

There are a lot more "professional" photographers that use a Leica M then you may think ... some for their paying work, some for their personal photography. You don't know of them because they aren't all here blabbing on and on, nor apparently in your world.

 

Maybe the cool aid that's being swallowed wholesale is by those obsessed with every so-called little improvement the technocrats dream up at the insistence of the marketing department as the camera companies slug it out for market share ... so their tiny division of a global conglomerate doesn't get jettisoned like Kyrocera did with Contax . All these millions of dollars and endless upgrade cycles everyone pays for in ever narrowing cycles ... and photography hasn't improved one little bit. Nada. It's just become more democratic and perhaps a bit more of a homogenized commodity every day.

 

The squirrel cage quote comes to mind again.

 

-Marc

[AlanG]

Well Marc I agree and disagree with some of your points. When I shot film I didn't upgrade too often because the changes in cameras usually didn't matter that much to me and I had quite a few systems that covered all my needs. I had some Linhof view cameras that could do everything I could need but I did buy new view camera lenses when their field of view improved in a model, a useful new lens came out, or when a special shutter could be useful. But in general a view camera and lens could last quite a while. As I used LF and MF when I needed the most detail, I didn't always worry about trying to get the best IQ out of my 35mm gear.

 

With digital, I am tempted to upgrade more regularly because I don't have many cameras and use them fairly extensively. So I want to have fairly new cameras just for the reliability. If the new camera comes with some features I can use or have a bit better IQ, that helps speed up the replacement cycle for me. And I place a great premium today on good quality from 35mm digital.

 

As for photography not getting better. That is a hard call. It isn't that what can constitute a great photo can necessarily get better. As countless great photos have been made with all kinds of gear since 1840 or so. But I think the bar steadily gets raised as to what makes acceptable technical quality in some fields. Along with the bar of expected results getting raised, the bar for achieving those results gets lowered as it is much easier to be proficient technically now than it was with film. And using lighting equipment is also much easier now. Seeing results at the time of the shoot takes a lot of pressure off and also reduces the skills required. But it is also harder now to come up with new ideas, a personal style, or new ways of depicting a given subject so that it looks fresh or special. And a lot more people are trying to do this. Pros and enthusiasts.

 

Additionally all kinds of advances in cameras including high shutter speeds, hi ISO, IS, focus tracking, new lenses, small remote cameras, and other features may let a photographer come away with an image that was almost impossible to get without the technology. (Not all of these have to do with digital technology of course.) I think overall this makes photography "better." It may not always lead to better photographs.

 

Regardless of how many pros use Leica, Canon, or Nikon, I think the enthusiasts are the biggest market for the "serious" models from all of them, but the enthusiasts may have different expectations for what they want from Leica than they do from Canon or Nikon. I have never shot a video with my 5DII other than playing with it and I know some pros who have never turned on live view on their cameras. And I know some who have never shot tethered. It really varies but each might need at least one of those features.

 

The market for high end bicycles is the same with relatively few going to pro racers. But they make new models every year with very gradual and often totally insignificant changes. Well-to-do middle age guys and gals buy them up.

[wildlightphoto]

I'm beginning to understand why Chambers' Diglloyd doesn't feature user comments.

 

It's called casting pearls to the swine.

[diogenis]

Whatever all of you say, the fact remains that compared to digital cameras of today, the Leica M 9 ( and earlier the M8) have a lot of disadvantages. There is no point in comparing too the possibilities of analogue cameras, or other useless facts. Today counts. Once again: high ISO is lousy, the camera is far too slow, the LCD screen is lousy, and the dynamic range is also not that good. So it is not strange that the majority of professionals do not use the M9. ( most certainly not in things like news photography.)

 

You would love to use it, but it's just too expensive. And for street work or news photography as you call it, it's the best tool currently available. The alternative is a cheaper set but again, not by much that will make you look like a human clothes hanger, even feel like one. Have you ever tried one of these cameras? Maybe this will change your attitude towards them

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sblitz]

I believe some of his earlier work on the m9 was fairly positive. he loves some of the lenses and even adds a click through to b and h for you to buy it and then gets a commission on the sale which he dutifully notes. everyone is entitled to try to earn a living however, but i am personally suspicious of reviewers that earn by your buying the items they review. i am sometimes wonder whether his sudden rant on the m9, a rant he could've written over a year ago, reflects some disappointment in his dealings with leica. shady business this review and sell combo, where some camera companies may be more forthcoming with free products than others. happens with other reviewers of other types of products -- car magazines that accept car ads, etc. anyway, he has some points but i love the camera regardless and given some of the images i have made and others seen on various sites the limit of the camera resides with the camera man.

[diogenis]

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.

 

Ok I will insist on the RF, that is a mechanism, a very simple optical mechanism that works and is accurate, but this accuracy is only dependant on the distance you have between the two lenses that project the RF patch and the angle that forms between them.

At this moment and for like 50 years this mechanism is optical.

Leica could in fact make the transition (just as they did for digital sensor) and make it fully electronic: same principle same feeling only electronic and easier to use. That is what I am expecting from a new Leica M10. And then there is no need for vertical patch there is no need for patch at all and you also get a focus confirmation as a bonus.