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

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was trying to help you sorry if it appeared a rant, the first thing I'd say is the M is really only for 35mm lenses.

 

If you are going to take 9cm faces a SLR is better. This is what people did in 1965 Nikon F 85mm or 50mm, and M2, ...35mm (or Canon P 35mm in place of M) the F with a motor drive. But a SLR screen can be really dark in lower light. So then you need an M with a fast 9cm, and it is not easy, if you want to continue photographing.

 

Nothing has changed since '65, except SLR screens are a little brighter, but the bright screens can be more difficult to focus in low light, - this really dependent on your eyesight.

 

(I'd accept a DSLR with face rec or campact wilh illumicnation or IR are different, I have a Contax G, cant reconmmend that but you could try an a X100, might work for you. Note some people swear by their G.)

 

The big difference is that:

 

A) You get feedback from the DOF on a long lens on an SLR.

This is only true if you stop down and only on matt or Fresnel screen area, With a M if the focus point double images you are out of focus but you know how much by and in which direction, Same as with a SLR when you are using a (center) split. The M will operate in low light, cant use an SLR myself in same light levels.

Note the post 58 M3 and all M2 have a mechanism for indicating depth of field... only for /5.6 and /16 and 5cm, but the mechanism is valid for other focal lengths, even if the calibration varies

.

You don't have to use the center to focus

you would need to have 20/20 vision, and use a plain ground glass or fresnel screen with a SLR, never been able to do that in low light, low`light is really marginal with a M3 (0.9 finder). I dont understand your comment), i.e the centre spot split image may be the only thing you can see, unless you have non focus clear outer screen area.

 

C) The 90mm framelines cover a small portion of the viewfinder on a (sic M) rangefinder

If you are using 90mm in tylight you need an M with a 0.9 finder and maybe a magnifier, if you dont have a highlight in eye (to track) you are going to have more difficulty, but with a SLR I'd not bother trying

note this is rather like a SLR with different screens i.e. you might use a different screen for a 9cm and 3.5mm. With an M you would need a 0.9 finder with a mag for 9cm and a 0.7 finder for 35mm. (You probably need a MP with all surfaces multi coated, if you are a low light specialist.)

 

I never get a high success rate, on the focus on the near eye, low light

 

 

If you want a full head shot with a 90mm (portrait orientation) you'll notice that the rangefinder patch covers the nose. By the time you have recomposed after focusing the subject may have moved already.

You are in error the patch is really big as a fraction of the frame. And it will indeed include the nose in the patch but this is irrelevant you are (i.e. you need to be) compelled by a high light in eye, or the white/iris boundary. If you or the subject are not stationary you may need to use a 75mm and crop, but that is not for the focus spot.

 

The effect is bad with a SLR where the centre spot (split) is really small, relative to the subjects face.

 

Going by feel and trying to compensate for subject movements without getting any feedback in the viewfinder is of course possible, but much more difficult. Which was my point.

 

but that is also my point i.e. M gives feedback in low light manual SLR do not the split rangefinder in the SLR goes black well before the M3, the Frenel or ground glass is even darker.

 

I accept that a multi point focus face rec in DLSR may work, donno how much feedback you get in real terms, none with a Contax G, just in case we have a G afisicando you do get feedback but it is not useful.

 

The current rangefinder is an expensie part of the M, Leica would love to simplify it, there is some risk/sympathy that the M9 may be the last of the measuring viewfinders, the 'M'10 something else. Life is to short to worry about such risks.

 

The rangefinder (e.g. M) has always been about low light shooting with fast 5cm (/1.2 or /1.1) in the 50-60 before SLR were procameras, I accept you would needed to have used a Canon f/1.2 LTM and adapter on your M3 in '55. The SLR were never so good in low light.

 

I may have misundersood what you are saying, have you any clues on what I have wrong.

 

Noel

[Advertisement]

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

[denoir]

Noel, I think we must have misunderstood each other.

 

I was never talking about lenses in general, but long lenses -90 mm to be specific - and I was not talking about low light shooting. In fact I was never talking about manual focus at all - I just made a side comment that I had experience with it on the DSLR side. My original statement was just that most professionals prefer AF cameras because they are easier to use.

 

However now that we're talking manual focus: Assuming adequate lighting conditions I find it easier to focus lenses up to 50mm with a rangefinder. Above 50mm I find it easier to focus a (d)SLR with a precision matte screen (without split prism). Specifically, I'm comparing the M9 & M6 with the 5DII with a EG-S matte screen.

 

Luka

[denoir]

A) I don't usually stop down on a dSLR. I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the DOF preview on any SLR over the last 20 years or so

 

As for the center, well, that's not quite true. Split-field or prismatic SLR screens are always in the center, nowhere else. For a medium tele at 90mm wide open close up, the ground glass is very hard to focus with IMO. But I agree it's sometimes faster than focus and recompose you must use on the M9,

 

C) The 90 & 135 framelines on the standard M9 aren't optimal, to be sure. I use a 1.25x magnifier and that helps a lot. I kinda wish I could afford an M9 MP .85 RF That would fix the 90 dilemma.

 

The big balancing advantage of manually focusing with the M9 is that it's just way brighter than any AF dSLR I've ever used, even with special screens (the 1ds2 and Nikon D3. To my eyes it's also more "positive" in feedback because there's an apparent change in contrast in addition to convergence when the patch "snaps" into focus. Having said that, the best normal format dSLR I've seen for manual focusing is the D3 / D3s, they have a very nice viewfinder for a dSLR; coverage is great and it's really quite bright.

 

The other exception is the S2 viewfinder. It's probably the sheer size of the mirror or something, but it's very large and very bright and easy to focus with.... the R series were great too, but they were manual focus cameras... and weren't splitting light for AF sensors...

 

Jamie, my response here is going to be the same as to Noel. I wasn't talking about low light shooting where a rangefinder definitely has an advantage - especially if you are using a dense precision matte screen on the DSLR. The second is that I use a precision matte screen on my 5DII and it's very easy to use the ground glass to get the focus correct (it shows to about f/1.8-f/1.4). On my 7D manual focus with fast lenses is essentially impossible as the stock screen shows at best f/4.

 

I don't use a viewfinder magnifier on my M9 (and M6) as I use a diopter and removing it every time when I wanted to use a magnifier would mean that I'd lose a diopter lens at least once a week and that would not be very economical in the long run

[Xmas]

Jamie, my response here is going to be the same as to Noel. I wasn't talking about low light shooting where a rangefinder definitely has an advantage - especially if you are using a dense precision matte screen on the DSLR. The second is that I use a precision matte screen on my 5DII and it's very easy to use the ground glass to get the focus correct (it shows to about f/1.8-f/1.4). On my 7D manual focus with fast lenses is essentially impossible as the stock screen shows at best f/4.

 

I don't use a viewfinder magnifier on my M9 (and M6) as I use a diopter and removing it every time when I wanted to use a magnifier would mean that I'd lose a diopter lens at least once a week and that would not be very economical in the long run

 

This is bad we are agreeg with one another!

I use a M3 (0.92x) finder for low light 9cm, partly cause I use both eyes. M2 (0.7x) for wides.

Simple screens for SLRs, stop when it gets dark..

Cant use the Contax G at all, tried.

 

Noel

.

[diogenis]

The big difference is that:

 

A) You get feedback from the DOF on a long lens on an SLR.

You don't have to use the center to focus

C) The 90mm framelines cover a small portion of the viewfinder on a rangefinder

....

On the other side, DoF comes with the huge expense of looking at the world through welding glasses. Is that a way to take pics?

Also how easy can you focus using those split screens, particularly in dark scenery?

And one last thing: why should one care how DoF will look like prior shooting?

[henning]

digilloyd has many good suggestions, and his comments are worth reading. No, I don't agree with everything and some things don't apply to my and my usage.

 

However, just because you have become proficient with a Speed Graphic and Graphmatic holders, and long, long ago I have doesn't mean that there aren't new ways to do things that might be considered improvements.

 

I like the M9 sensor as it is. I use Canons (and other items) as well, and I prefer the M9 output. I don't really need higher ISO capability, but I really wouldn't mind it and would make use of it if it were available. Just don't make it output the same as a Canon.

 

DR is fine with me as well. More would be good, but it's not that important.

 

The rangefinder is fine; I've used a Leica for 50 years and I'm quite used to it. However, I now have a couple of cameras that have alternate focussing systems and some of them are astoundingly useful. Having live view with adjustable magnifiable focussing point makes using a 17TSE lens truly easy. I wish my view cameras had something like that. Actually, I really like my LF cameras, but that is beside the point. Different ways of focussing are very useful. The face rec on the Panasonic GH2 is a delight at times.

 

Focussing frame accuracy is a non-issue for me. My (original) M8 has the frames I like, so there.

 

What really bugs me about the M9 is the sluggishness. My M6 and earlier never locked up on me after I took 7 quick shots in row. And now that chimping is legal, make it really useful by making it fast. Get those processors cranking!!!.

 

The response 'Just hit the shutter before you raise it to your eye to wake it up' is like saying 'Having to crank start your car is no big deal. Just start it, and after that it's no different than a car with electric starter'. The point is that cameras have moved well beyond that kind of startup lag, especially at price levels above $1000.

 

The immediate defensiveness of many people on this forum and other Leica User's internet areas is also right on with what digilloyd said.

 

Suck it up. There's lots that can be improved on the Leica, and some of those things should probably have been looked at before the M9 came out. I fully realize that Leica had a lot of tough decisions to make when the M9 (and M8) was developed, and on the whole I think they did a great job. Now think of the M10, and use some of the profits from the current bonanza to advance, and to bring those things that were out of date when the previous cameras came out up to date.

 

Henning

[Haydenjr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

I don't use a viewfinder magnifier on my M9 (and M6) as I use a diopter and removing it every time when I wanted to use a magnifier would mean that I'd lose a diopter lens at least once a week and that would not be very economical in the long run

 

That makes perfect sense.

 

I also require a wee bit of diopter correction (I wish they'd build that into the eyepiece, btw) but I find using the magnifier or M6 .85 covers it--I can still see what's in focus.

 

I honestly didn't know you couldn't use them together... but I can see how awkward that would be anyway.

[lct]

They can be used together.

[denoir]

They can be used together.

 

The diopter isn't threaded so while you can put the diopter on the magnifier you can't do it vice versa. So you have to take the diopter off when putting on the magnifier making the whole thing very impractical.

[lct]

Yes this is the reason, among others, why i don't use mine on M8.2 and much prefer the 1:1 VF or the Epson R-D1.

[Jamie Roberts]

The diopter isn't threaded so while you can put the diopter on the magnifier you can't do it vice versa. So you have to take the diopter off when putting on the magnifier making the whole thing very impractical.

 

In all honesty, since, as I said, my M6 is .85 and I'm used to the framing, and my widest normal lens that I use a lot is a 28 (and even more often a 35), I just leave the magnifier on at all times. Thanks for the specifics.

[TomB_tx]

As this thread shows, each person sees improvements differently. As a Leica user since the '60s, my suggestions would be very different:

1. Drop the LCD all together. Saves battery and keeps the photographer looking to the next shot instead of wasting time on the last one. Never missed an LCD on film M, and don't want it now. (Yes, that would mean adding controls for needed functions.)

2. Drop the motorized shutter wind, go back to thumb lever. Saves battery even more, and I'm not using my thumb for anything anyway. I like to pick the timing for my shots, and almost never shoot faster than I did with manual wind anyway.

3. The rangefinder focus is just fine. If you know your camera and lens, experience tells you how it will look in print. Use a set combination of lens and camera enough, and change only when needed, not just because you can.

4. Yes, there are times I find an SLR more fitting, but I haven't found a Digital SLR worthwhile. My Leicaflex SL from '69 is still better for me. (Or a Pentax MX for faster handling.) The SL and 135 Elmarit-R is a very nice combination. I've been doing more macro work on the M9 with Viso III, which works very well. But I hope Leica never tries to merge EVF into the M to make it more SLRish. It's the simplicity that I like.

5. I'll probably stick with the M9 no matter what the M10 may look like. After all, I used my M4 up until the M9 came out, and still prefer it in many ways.

[NZDavid]

I certainly don't rely on an LCD to tell me how good the result is -- I wait till I see it on a large screen. Even seeing an LCD in bright light is nigh on impossible.

 

I like a big, simple, clear viewfinder. My M6, which used to belong to a friend, has framelines only for 35, 50, and 90.

 

I prefer RF focusing not for its speed -- although I find it fast enough for me -- but for its precision.

 

I think the demand to view everything on an LCD -- to change settings, compose, focus, review -- reflects a fundamental shift in how humans are seeing the world. This trend is being driven by computer and cell phone technology. Humans evolved as hunters. We used to scan the far horizon in search of prey. The M Leica is perfectly adapted to this approach of long-distance viewing. Now many of us are squinting into screens. There is no evidence this approach actually leads to better pictures.

 

Long term we'll turn into a hunch-backed, bent-neck, near-sighted species. Humans were designed to hunt, not sit and type. (And I'm as guilty as anyone.)

 

Viewed objectively, and just comparing features, the M indeed looks anachronistic; get out there and actually shoot with it and it is a joy to use.

[diogenis]

As this thread shows, each person sees improvements differently. As a Leica user since the '60s, my suggestions would be very different:

1. Drop the LCD all together. Saves battery and keeps the photographer looking to the next shot instead of wasting time on the last one. Never missed an LCD on film M, and don't want it now. (Yes, that would mean adding controls for needed functions.)

2. Drop the motorized shutter wind, go back to thumb lever. Saves battery even more, and I'm not using my thumb for anything anyway. I like to pick the timing for my shots, and almost never shoot faster than I did with manual wind anyway.

3. The rangefinder focus is just fine. If you know your camera and lens, experience tells you how it will look in print. Use a set combination of lens and camera enough, and change only when needed, not just because you can.

4. Yes, there are times I find an SLR more fitting, but I haven't found a Digital SLR worthwhile. My Leicaflex SL from '69 is still better for me. (Or a Pentax MX for faster handling.) The SL and 135 Elmarit-R is a very nice combination. I've been doing more macro work on the M9 with Viso III, which works very well. But I hope Leica never tries to merge EVF into the M to make it more SLRish. It's the simplicity that I like.

5. I'll probably stick with the M9 no matter what the M10 may look like. After all, I used my M4 up until the M9 came out, and still prefer it in many ways.

 

All this would make sense if they wanted to make a model resembling the M7P. No need for batteries, or with rechargeables built in that can be recharged from various sources., that could last forever. Just pick it up and shoot. It's a nice idea but not as the main model.

[mwilliamsphotography]

The diopter isn't threaded so while you can put the diopter on the magnifier you can't do it vice versa. So you have to take the diopter off when putting on the magnifier making the whole thing very impractical.

 

I have a 3rd party mag with a variable diopter correction built in. But you still have to replace it with a regular diopter when you remove it. To avoid losing them I took to storing them in one of those plastic battery cases for AA batteries.

 

Leica seriously needs to include an adjustable and locking variable diopter correction in the M camera.

 

-Marc

[AlanG]

I certainly don't rely on an LCD to tell me how good the result is -- I wait till I see it on a large screen. Even seeing an LCD in bright light is nigh on impossible.

 

I like a big, simple, clear viewfinder. My M6, which used to belong to a friend, has framelines only for 35, 50, and 90.

 

I prefer RF focusing not for its speed -- although I find it fast enough for me -- but for its precision.

 

I think the demand to view everything on an LCD -- to change settings, compose, focus, review -- reflects a fundamental shift in how humans are seeing the world. This trend is being driven by computer and cell phone technology. Humans evolved as hunters. We used to scan the far horizon in search of prey. The M Leica is perfectly adapted to this approach of long-distance viewing. Now many of us are squinting into screens. There is no evidence this approach actually leads to better pictures.

 

If I wait until I am at a larger monitor then I will only see my mistakes when it is too late to re-shoot. I don't have evidence that the LCD leads to better pictures in general but I feel there have been many occasions where it has led to better pictures for me. Even for something as common as shooting a group shot and making sure everyone has his/her eyes open it is extremely handy. I can't count the number of times I shot again after looking at the LCD and thinking of a way to "correct" or vary the shot - including when shooting action where I might have to figure out what shutter speed will give a sharp subject or precisely the motion blur that I'm looking for.

 

I know you are going to say that I must miss all of the action when chimping. To that I'll say, you have to know when to chimp. (And one could miss something when rewinding film and reloading too.) There is a skill to using it just like anything else. It certainly doesn't hinder static subjects and in those cases it actually makes me contemplate the scene more and refine the shot or make sure I am covering the subject fully if required. (E.g. close, mid, far, high, low, vertical, horizontal.) Comparatively little photography has to be shot in such a hyper "run and gun" style that wold preclude occasional chimping. For action images, I'll often shoot a test image before the action or in anticipation of the scene coming together, look at it to judge composition, focus, etc. and then wait for the action (decisive moment?) to come together. This is just another photographic approach that is basically a more evolved variation of pre-judging and pre-focusing and then waiting.

 

And in advertising photography I often have control over the action so I can shoot and chimp and repeat until I and/or my client are happy with the image. Once we are happy with the shot, we move on to the next shot. It is very efficient and I know I have the shot before moving on. And a lot of times it is handy to show the subject (professional model or not) what the images look like so that I can elicit a different expression or pose. Or simply to get their approval if the shot is for them.

 

As for squinting at screens... There is nothing new about this. Earliest cameras had a ground glass and a dark cloth and many people still shoot that way squinting into a focusing loupe. If you are incapable of seeing a 3inch LCD, I don't see how you can set the f stop or shutter speed either.

 

The biggest difference between digital photography and film photography is that digital photography gives us additional tools to work with - when shooting and in post production. I often find it advantageous to utilize them or would have just continued to use film.

[AlanG]

As this thread shows, each person sees improvements differently. As a Leica user since the '60s, my suggestions would be very different:

1. Drop the LCD all together. Saves battery and keeps the photographer looking to the next shot instead of wasting time on the last one. Never missed an LCD on film M, and don't want it now. (Yes, that would mean adding controls for needed functions.)

2. Drop the motorized shutter wind, go back to thumb lever. Saves battery even more, and I'm not using my thumb for anything anyway. I like to pick the timing for my shots, and almost never shoot faster than I did with manual wind anyway.

 

It seems to me that if you were used to carrying enough rolls of film to be equal to the number of shots from just one battery then carrying a couple of extra batteries should be no problem. (Salgado used solar chargers in Alaska.)

 

For me, sometimes going to the next shot is not a good idea if I might have blown the previous one and can still re-shoot.

 

But you are also up for adding more controls to the camera to make up for removing the LCD. Wouldn't that require quite a few control, to retain most M9 functions, and really change the character of the camera? I can't even see how an unlimited number of manual controls could take up the slack and this would preclude adding or changing features via firmware.

 

The reality is that this bridge was crossed long ago.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Xmas]

It seems to me that if you were used to carrying enough rolls of film to be equal to the number of shots from just one battery then carrying a couple of extra batteries should be no problem. (Salgado used solar chargers in Alaska.)

In cities there still is film a block or two away even on Sundays, Leica batteries more difficult, they dont seem terribly repeatable. In Afgan..no shops & the cold can wipe batteries, film brittle as well.

 

For me, sometimes going to the next shot is not a good idea if I might have blown the previous one and can still re-shoot.

99% of my M shots unrepeatable

 

But you are also up for adding more controls to the camera to make up for removing the LCD. Wouldn't that require quite a few control, to retain most M9 functions, and really change the character of the camera? I can't even see how an unlimited number of manual controls could take up the slack and this would preclude adding or changing features via firmware.

 

The reality is that this bridge was crossed long ago.

sic only if you have a M8 or M9 or other dcamera already.

 

If you leave out lots it might be cheaper the M2 was cheaper than M3 in '58. Leica need to sell the M10.

 

If you can repeat shots and the M9 is on a tripod you could plug in a laptop/webbook to chimp?

 

Noel

[AlanG]

99% of my M shots unrepeatable

 

 

For the cases where I have only one shot at it, I find that it is good to be as prepared in advance as possible. Just as photographers would anticipate a shot and be ready by pre-focusing and setting exposure in advance, you can often shoot a test shot in advance and look at it on the LCD to judge exposure, focus and composition. Everyone who has done street photography has pre-visualized a shot in advance and then waited for a person to walk into a specific spot. Sometimes this kind of photography is reaction and sometimes it is anticipation. Of course you can't always have time to make a test shot.

 

Sometimes action is fairly predictable too. Let's say I'm shooting something like a swimming race. Well I shoot as much as possible when they are practicing, look at those images and then decide how I think it is best to shoot the actual race. At which point, I'll be very prepared for the action and composition I want and can go from spot to spot decisively. This same thing applies to diving, racing cars, baseball, horse jumping, all kinds of other activities. I just shot a static swimming pool/clubhouse this way - I did the advance shots during the daytime and then could narrow those down to the two angles that I'd shoot from in the 15 minute period I had at dusk and arrange the chairs, etc. so it would work best.

 

Perhaps some photographers don't want to work this way, but I do and will take any help I can get. I said all of this in my other post but maybe you missed it:

 

"For action images, I'll often shoot a test image before the action or in anticipation of the scene coming together, look at it to judge composition, focus, etc. and then wait for the action (decisive moment?) to come together. This is just another photographic approach that is basically a more evolved variation of pre-judging and pre-focusing and then waiting."