pop Posted June 14, 2011 Share #261 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... 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. That is the very thing many of us do not want. The mechano-optical range finder is reasonably accurate and it's so simple to operate that there's never a moment's doubt whether you got it right or not. It does have shortcomings, but so does every device that ever existed, and for the skillful operator the simplicity and reliability outweigh the shortcomings (in most situations, anyway). There's nothing new or exciting about electronic rangefinders. They've been invented several decades ago. Even Leica had them in some of their products. However, electronic range finders (and autofocus systems) also need some contrast in the scenery. There are many cameras which will be unable to find the focus if there's no vertical edge. Also, you can't get rid of the patch or some equivalent because without it you'd be clueless about what exactly would be in focus within your field of view. It has been my experience that autofocus systems can let you down at the most inopportune and unexpected moments such that you miss your shots. It's the unexpectedness which can be a dealbreaker. There's no camera design which is equally well suited for all kinds of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 Hi pop, Take a look here Open Letter to Leica — 10 Ways To Improve the M9 Rangefinder. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #262 Posted June 14, 2011 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. The RF is simple correct, but leica have had some troubles with it, over last few decades, like leaving bits out so it did not work, i.e. the M6. The accuracy is also dependent on the magnification as well as separation. The rangefinder has been in Leicas for longer then 50 years, 80 seems nearer. At this point you have three strikes so I detect you may be an artists, hey just cause I'm not does not mean that I dislike or do not appreciate artists. But... The digital sensor was easy RD/1 had done it they had one in the DMR, a new rangefinder system would be more difficult. What you could do is look at what Zeiss did with the Contax G1 and Contax G1, which are beautiful cameras but the rangefinder does not work for me, and lots of others... What you need to know is I dont use the rangefinder but even trying to inhibit it is impossible, a point and shoot much better! Eventually Zeiss relented and copied the M viewfinder using better optics. Please think why they did that... Zeiss are a large company... why did they copy a 80 year old design? The X100 rangefinder system (and Fuji are an enormous company) is also strange, the reviews equivocal, they say the build standard only bettered by M9.... You could try the X100. So I suggest a new rangefinder system really difficult... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2011 Share #263 Posted June 14, 2011 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 that every customer knows what's best. There are a lot of cranks out there. You can listen to the customers, and you can choose to ignore them. I wonder if people send emails to Gordon Ramsey explaining what he needs to do in order to compete with McDonalds - because from a financial point of view they are much more successful than him - and more popular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2011 Share #264 Posted June 14, 2011 Ok 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. Doesn't it also depend on the magnification? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #265 Posted June 14, 2011 The RF is simple correct, but leica have had some troubles with it, over last few decades, like leaving bits out so it did not work, i.e. the M6.Noel Did not work is overstating the case a bit... The M6TTL had the problem that if the light struck at a certain angle the RF patch flared. Not elegant, but there are workarounds in the fairly rare case it happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #266 Posted June 14, 2011 Did not work is overstating the case a bit... The M6TTL had the problem that if the light struck at a certain angle the RF patch flared. Not elegant, but there are workarounds in the fairly rare case it happens. I beg to disagree Yes there are work arounds e.g. when a profile light high and to right catches the frame finder window window the patch turns white so I need to stick my spare eleventh finger over the illumination window, or fit one of the kludges. By then the high artist has fallen of the stage and i have missed the shot. It is simpler not buying a M6, it is unusable for gigs, an M3 perfect, in gigs the lights are not always static, Lots of people upgrade their M6 finder for a M7/MP finder, this is not cheap why do they do that? When Leica substituted the viewfinder condenser component they were saving money. it took Leica 15 years to address the problem. Leica listened to adverse customer feedback, and reacted promptly? Noel P.S. The problem seems to exist in M6 classics, and some M4-2 and some M4-P as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #267 Posted June 14, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I know- I had a TTL and hated the effect. In fact it made me sell the camera amongst other thinga. I stuck on the SHADE by Leica Goodies and that worked quite well. However the percentage of shots that it happened on was quite low. If the Internet forums had existed back then just imagine the heat Leica would have taken for it - like the IR sensitivity on the M8 I guess. The M6 classic I have now has not flared once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #268 Posted June 14, 2011 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.) Ah- I've always wondered about photographers Edmund Terakopian (World Press Photo winner) and Michael Kamber (Pulitzer Prize winner) and quite some others- now I find out they stop being news photographers when they pick up their M9. And all those foolish amateurs at Magnum... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 14, 2011 Share #269 Posted June 14, 2011 Ah- I've always wondered about photographers Edmund Terakopian (World Press Photo winner) and Michael Kamber (Pulitzer Prize winner) and quite some others- now I find out they stop being news photographers when they pick up their M9. And all those foolish amateurs at Magnum... Leica should use professional photographers in the advertising of the M9 (or S2), and promoting their names and work. I liked that campaign with pictures of the hands of famous photographers. The potential owners of the cameras would "see" the Leica tradition as a still alive connection of the brand with creativity and photography in its pure form (reportage photography, artistic photography, etc.). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 14, 2011 Share #270 Posted June 14, 2011 Leica should use professional photographers in the advertising of the M9 (or S2), and promoting their names and work. I'm not sure that they don't already do this. There's a lot of mutual pimping going on with the Leica blog, LFI magazine, etc. The link-up with Magnum is presumably also meant to further this side of the marketing mix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #271 Posted June 14, 2011 I know- I had a TTL and hated the effect. In fact it made me sell the camera amongst other thinga. I stuck on the SHADE by Leica Goodies and that worked quite well. However the percentage of shots that it happened on was quite low. If the Internet forums had existed back then just imagine the heat Leica would have taken for it - like the IR sensitivity on the M8 I guess.The M6 classic I have now has not flared once. Hi I have a M6 classic and late M4-2 and both will white out easily. They are ok for street shooting, when I use scale focus, or click stops on the CV 25mm LTM. But when my M4 went in for a shutter rebuild with an independent repairer the return worksheet indicated a viewfinder 'flare' enhancement had been included, gratis, as part of the rebuild, so unless the camera has its origonal seal you dont necessarily know its complete provenance. I should have rung him and asked as he is nice but he is busy. Never had a problem with earlier than M4-2. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 14, 2011 Share #272 Posted June 14, 2011 I have a M6 classic and late M4-2 and both will white out easily. They are ok for street shooting, when I use scale focus, or click stops on the CV 25mm LTM. I have the same kind of M6, but can't say mine ever had the problem anything other than very occasionally - and even then it could usually be solved by moving the eye slightly in the viewfinder. I certainly never had to resort to scale focussing. Perhaps there was some other problem with your M6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #273 Posted June 14, 2011 Hi I have a M6 classic and late M4-2 and both will white out easily. They are ok for street shooting, when I use scale focus, or click stops on the CV 25mm LTM. But when my M4 went in for a shutter rebuild with an independent repairer the return worksheet indicated a viewfinder 'flare' enhancement had been included, gratis, as part of the rebuild, so unless the camera has its origonal seal you dont necessarily know its complete provenance. I should have rung him and asked as he is nice but he is busy. Never had a problem with earlier than M4-2. Noel I have no problem with provenance - I bought my M6 classic factory-new half a year ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 14, 2011 Share #274 Posted June 14, 2011 I have no problem with provenance - I bought my M6 classic factory-new half a year ago. Hi Perhaps Leica have been sneaky and built in some anti flare then? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #275 Posted June 14, 2011 Maybe I'll get some in autumn, with the sun getting lower Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raoul1 Posted June 14, 2011 Share #276 Posted June 14, 2011 Ah- I've always wondered about photographers Edmund Terakopian (World Press Photo winner) and Michael Kamber (Pulitzer Prize winner) and quite some others- now I find out they stop being news photographers when they pick up their M9. And all those foolish amateurs at Magnum... The majority. Go to a news event where a lot of photographers are. Count the Leicas. I did several times. Perhaps 1 among 30 . Time after time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 14, 2011 Share #277 Posted June 14, 2011 The best way to improve any camera is NOT to read pointless 'it needs changing' commentaries on the web. Ask yourself 'is it fit for (my) purpose?' and if it is then great - if not then don't ponder about what might be in the future; change it for something that is better suited to you - now. Oddly enough, my M8s still take images which are of superb technical quality and which fit my needs perfectly well (an M9 would be nice but ..... £££ ..... one day) despite the vast number of reasons I have seen mentioned as to why they are obsolete and so, apparently, useless for taking photos;). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 14, 2011 Share #278 Posted June 14, 2011 The majority. Go to a news event where a lot of photographers are. Count the Leicas. I did several times. Perhaps 1 among 30 . Time after time. That is a far higher proportion than I see with photographers in general. Go to the beach and count the number of Leicas amongst camera carrying tourists. Maybe 1 in 10.000 Even dental conventions. maybe 1 in 100.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest raoul1 Posted June 14, 2011 Share #279 Posted June 14, 2011 That is a far higher proportion than I see with photographers in general. Go to the beach and count the number of Leicas amongst camera carrying tourists. Maybe 1 in 10.000 Even dental conventions. maybe 1 in 100.... It is every time the same photographer. What you write makes it even worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 14, 2011 Share #280 Posted June 14, 2011 That is the very thing many of us do not want. The mechano-optical range finder is reasonably accurate and it's so simple to operate that there's never a moment's doubt whether you got it right or not. It does have shortcomings, but so does every device that ever existed, and for the skillful operator the simplicity and reliability outweigh the shortcomings (in most situations, anyway). There's nothing new or exciting about electronic rangefinders. They've been invented several decades ago. Even Leica had them in some of their products. However, electronic range finders (and autofocus systems) also need some contrast in the scenery. There are many cameras which will be unable to find the focus if there's no vertical edge. Also, you can't get rid of the patch or some equivalent because without it you'd be clueless about what exactly would be in focus within your field of view. It has been my experience that autofocus systems can let you down at the most inopportune and unexpected moments such that you miss your shots. It's the unexpectedness which can be a dealbreaker. There's no camera design which is equally well suited for all kinds of work. I just don't understand why are we so reluctant to incorporate new technology to give a breath of fresh air into a succesful product. The optomechanical RF mechanism we still use is a superb solution, but that also comes at a cost: its big, heavy, expensive, needs diopter correction lenses, needs magnifying lenses, and to some folks with poor eyesight needs a means of confirmation. Leica realizes that the more it tries with other camera series (S2, X1) the less it sells. I am speaking of a refurbished fully electronic RF with 2 small cameras with lenses located in a bigger base in the new camera. The operation is exactly EXACTLY the same with what you have now, the principles are the same, only it is done with electronics. Lens will stay the same with the same rotating focus tab, only now you dont need the central patch, just a target that will show you where it focus. I'm sure there is technology that can tell when contrast is at its best, or maybe a circuit that will add one camera signal to the inverted one of the other to produce close to 0 if that's possible. I don't really know, this is where innovation comes. Instead of coinciding patches you now only need left, right and middle led. There is no link to the VF which is left alone and why should it? The VF is for composing, the RF is well, for rangefinding. Instead there is now left plenty of room to add mag lenses, diopter adjustments, better eye relief, etc, etc. Provided, they can compare the two signals from the cameras, which I really dont see why not of course. And so, there you have it the M with new technology for the electronic afficionados. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.