NZDavid Posted June 20, 2011 Share #401 Posted June 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... If you are incapable of seeing a 3inch LCD, I don't see how you can set the f stop or shutter speed either.... Like I said, seeing an LCD in bright light is very hard. Impossible for composition or accurate reviewing. OK if you are indoors or in dim light. No problem with seeing a real dial and turning it. It's a much easier way of setting controls. Better than wading through menus. One control not three. A dedicated ISO knob would also be good. You could also have a white balance dial. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Hi NZDavid, 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!
AlanG Posted June 20, 2011 Share #402 Posted June 20, 2011 Like I said, seeing an LCD in bright light is very hard. Impossible for composition or accurate reviewing. OK if you are indoors or in dim light. No problem with seeing a real dial and turning it. It's a much easier way of setting controls. Better than wading through menus. One control not three. A dedicated ISO knob would also be good. You could also have a white balance dial. I am not getting into the can of worms of adding additional dials or other controls to the camera even if I think that a few more might make the camera faster to set. Since I shoot only raw, I never bother to adjust the white balance in camera. What you are describing about the LCD is the reason it might need to be improved if that will make it as useful as the screens on some other cameras. Keep in mind that in bright light, I am not necessarily trying to judge color but may just judge the composition, and zoom to check focus, or I'll look at the histogram. And sometimes I'll move to a shaded area to review the images if I need to be more critical. I also often shoot exteriors of homes and add light with some powerful electronic flash units. And I am able to judge and adjust the flash to sunlight ratio without a problem. As a longtime digital shooter, I have been able to get some benefit from even the early small LCDs in direct sunlight. Sometimes I have to shield them with my hand and other times I've used a variety of attachable loupes. One was a little leather bellows with a lens. And now I have a Z finder. As an avid skier, I have shot countless images and videos on the brightest ski slopes, often using strange cameras that people just hand me, and I've been able to do ok using most of these cameras that only have an LCD for framing. Some are much better than others. I'm just saying that many times looking at the image on the LCD has helped me make what I consider to be better pictures. I consider this a real advantage of digital cameras and have no reason to downplay my use of it or look at it as some kind of crutch. If others don't use it, that is their prerogative. It doesn't matter to me, but I think Leica would be foolish to not see the benefit of including the best available LCD. Typical setup where I'll stand on a ladder and adjust the light ratio judging the effect via the camera's LCD under bright conditions: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/153862-open-letter-to-leica-%E2%80%94-10-ways-to-improve-the-m9-rangefinder/?do=findComment&comment=1707554'>More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 20, 2011 Share #403 Posted June 20, 2011 No reason not to have a good LCD of course, and I agree even the older small ones were useful. Live view gives you 100% accurate composition (assuming you have the time, as in your house shots). But the Leica M range/viewfinder is a mechanical masterpiece in its own right. No, it's not as accurate but for me it's accurate enough. And it has other advantages (easy to see in any light, precise focusing). I would prefer to see Leica concentrating on making the M as robust and reliable as possible for a digital camera to be, achieving technical excellence (ongoing advances in sensor and IQ), rather than adding new features for the sake of it. Concentrate on the essentials. Evolution not revolution. A better LCD may be a useful evolutionary step; some of the extra proposed features are mere fads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 20, 2011 Share #404 Posted June 20, 2011 No reason not to have a good LCD of course, and I agree even the older small ones were useful. Live view gives you 100% accurate composition (assuming you have the time, as in your house shots). But the Leica M range/viewfinder is a mechanical masterpiece in its own right. No, it's not as accurate but for me it's accurate enough. And it has other advantages (easy to see in any light, precise focusing). I would prefer to see Leica concentrating on making the M as robust and reliable as possible for a digital camera to be, achieving technical excellence (ongoing advances in sensor and IQ), rather than adding new features for the sake of it. Concentrate on the essentials. Evolution not revolution. A better LCD may be a useful evolutionary step; some of the extra proposed features are mere fads. I agree with you on the priorities for improvement, but I think it will be inevitable that various other features will creep into the Leica over time as that will just be a natural process of evolution of digital photography. In the setup above, I simply took a shot, looked at the screen, adjusted the flash and shot again. An M9 could be used in the same way. I did not use live view although I could have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 20, 2011 Share #405 Posted June 20, 2011 I agree with you on the priorities for improvement, but I think it will be inevitable that various other features will creep into the Leica over time as that will just be a natural process of evolution of digital photography. In the setup above, I simply took a shot, looked at the screen, adjusted the flash and shot again. An M9 could be used in the same way. I did not use live view although I could have. Hi Leicas are so expensive they need to reduce cost, it would be nice if they were more effricient, but that is difficult. The M3 was more complex than a Barnack but they needed to have patents to disable Canon and Nikon and they needed a better camera, it had no more controls (well actualy fewer), (the initial M3 did not have a viewfinder selector. The M2 was simpler to make but introduced a new control (a manual set exposure counter). It sold real well. The M4 and M5 were not real successes, the M4-2 a Deming camera, a rather simpler and more austere M4.. If it is Leica going out of business or the screen going do you need the screen, wont a USB connector for a web book do? Please note do is not the same as 'be nicer then'. If the M10 was a cut down M9 (like a M2 was) but 20% less would you buy it? Chimp with a web book, (all the pros I see have large laptops with 3G for their news stories and e-mail). A small low res LCD for RGB histogram, I might give you e.g. for blown highlight control. Leica dont have the volume capacity or market for nice to haves. Noel P.S. About the 99% I set up every think like you say as much as possible, but when I go around a street corner, it is a new shoot, shoot any way, refocus, adjust exp in hopes of a 'similar' scean a second later, rare that a 2nd chance occurs. A Leica (sic 35mm) photo has always been about immediacy not quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 20, 2011 Share #406 Posted June 20, 2011 If the M10 was a cut down M9 (like a M2 was) but 20% less would you buy it? I don't know why you keep banging on about this. Yes, the M2 was cheaper than the M3, and yes, it was a little simpler internally. But in terms of "features" the only things missing from the M2 were the 135mm frameline and the auto-reset frame counter. As compensation, the M2 added the 35mm frameline and the DOF indicators in the viewfinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2011 Share #407 Posted June 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Leicas are so expensive they need to reduce cost, it would be nice if they were more effricient, but that is difficult. Are they? Afaik there is just one full frame camera cheaper than the M9. Expensive is a matter of personal perception. The M9 costs as much as one night's stay in some hotel suites in Dubai - so to the people staying in those suites it is real cheap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 20, 2011 Share #408 Posted June 20, 2011 I don't know why you keep banging on about this. Yes, the M2 was cheaper than the M3, and yes, it was a little simpler internally. But in terms of "features" the only things missing from the M2 were the 135mm frameline and the auto-reset frame counter. As compensation, the M2 added the 35mm frameline and the DOF indicators in the viewfinder. Hi John I'll accept that in terms of PR the featres were similar, the button rewind clutch, simpler than the lever, the self timer omitted initially except by special order, but you would have not expected Leica to indicate that the rangefinder (in M2) was a lot cheaper (cause they had simplified it from the M3), and that is what made the cost differential. The frame lines were the same three 50, 90, and 135 to 35, 50, 90 the magnification had changed, the DOF indicators were no real cost in a new rangefinder,,, The M2 was a follow on to M3 and it sold well, the M3 had sold well. Today we are in a similar situation and unless Leica have a M10 that sells well they will have difficulties. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted June 20, 2011 Share #409 Posted June 20, 2011 Are they? Afaik there is just one full frame camera cheaper than the M9. Not so, though there are only two DSLRs that cost more. Here are today's prices from my local box-shifter. (Comparing RRPs, the order is 1DS-iii, D3x, M9.) D3x £5149 1DS-iii £5104 M9 £4950 1D-iv £3599 D3s £3598 D700 £1849 5D-ii £1698 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2011 Share #410 Posted June 20, 2011 I stand corrected - in the bottom of the high echelon then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 20, 2011 Share #411 Posted June 20, 2011 Not so, though there are only two DSLRs that cost more. Here are today's prices from my local box-shifter. (Comparing RRPs, the order is 1DS-iii, D3x, M9.) D3x £5149 1DS-iii £5104 M9 £4950 1D-iv £3599 D3s £3598 D700 £1849 5D-ii £1698 The Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 is even cheaper if i'm not wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 20, 2011 Share #412 Posted June 20, 2011 Are they? Afaik there is just one full frame camera cheaper than the M9. Expensive is a matter of personal perception. The M9 costs as much as one night's stay in some hotel suites in Dubai - so to the people staying in those suites it is real cheap. HiJaapv Well I was actually thinking in absolute terms about the poor wedding photogs, or myself, who might want a rangefinder. I normaly use several identical bodies so... My friends who buy M9 are independent wealthy, or rich wedding photogs, they dont notice the £. And I thought there were three other manufacturers with full frame Dcameras with rather cheaper models, but they are each SLRs. And anyway full frame is not a prerequisit for me cost, and servicability would be. Hoping that RD/1 prices will drop, or Cosina bring out a follow on DBessa or DZM . does not need to be full frame. Noel P.S. sorry I type too slow and the price differentlal for M9s is larger 2nd hand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 20, 2011 Share #413 Posted June 20, 2011 Not so, though there are only two DSLRs that cost more. Here are today's prices from my local box-shifter. (Comparing RRPs, the order is 1DS-iii, D3x, M9.) D3x £5149 1DS-iii £5104 M9 £4950 1D-iv £3599 D3s £3598 D700 £1849 5D-ii £1698 The EOS-1D Mark IV isn’t FF though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted June 20, 2011 Share #414 Posted June 20, 2011 HUH? The 1D IV is not full frame. Full frame less $$$$ than the M9 (all of which are larger than the M9): Nikon D700/D3s (both lower resolution sensors) Sony A900/850 Canon 5DMKII An M digital with no LCD? Really? How many of those would sell? With certain digital cameras the LCD is the "Polaroid" ... working in the studio, or on location with lights for example. Most of my M work is not repeatable ... decisive moments tend to not repeat themselves. But it is nice to set the manual WB and then check it when entering a specific available lighting situation. And when popping off a series of portraits for example, it's nice to do a review to see it you got what you want so you can move on or keep shooting. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted June 20, 2011 Share #415 Posted June 20, 2011 HUH? The 1D IV is not full frame. Full frame less $$$$ than the M9 (all of which are larger than the M9): Nikon D700/D3s (both lower resolution sensors) Sony A900/850 Canon 5DMKII An M digital with no LCD? Really? How many of those would sell? With certain digital cameras the LCD is the "Polaroid" ... working in the studio, or on location with lights for example. Most of my M work is not repeatable ... decisive moments tend to not repeat themselves. But it is nice to set the manual WB and then check it when entering a specific available lighting situation. And when popping off a series of portraits for example, it's nice to do a review to see it you got what you want so you can move on or keep shooting. -Marc Agreed my point precisely 'WINBNI', 'Would it not be nice if' would it not be possible to instead do your WB post on the RAW file. KISS - keep it simple and stupid. DSLR normally have anti alias (i.e. moire filters) do you want that in your M10 as well? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted June 20, 2011 Share #416 Posted June 20, 2011 The cost of the camera body is only half of what one needs to pay. You also need lenses, and Leica lenses do cost a small fortune to obtain. So it's not just a matter of saving for the camera, but mostly it's lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted June 20, 2011 Share #417 Posted June 20, 2011 The sad thing is that Leica lenses are more and more out of reach of those who could probably put them to work best (esp the special fast ones) vs rich amateurs whose pictures I see would often be better off with a p&s (see scale focusing a 50mm .95 thread). And even the basic lenses are getting more out of reach (if you can find them), even on the used market. But Leica is a business, and if their business is now selling to the well-heeled so be it. The lenses are expensive to make, and they are not a photographers benevolence society. I do find it frustrating to not be able to afford the lenses that would make my photography richer (such as the 24 Lux) but I sit back and go okay my 24 Elmarit is just fine (bought mint w/ finder for $1225 in 2000). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted June 20, 2011 Share #418 Posted June 20, 2011 Well, if Leica wants to price everything in the stratosphere... Screw 'em. Zeiss and Voigtländer both make excellent lenses. Honestly, I think I prefer my ZMs anyway. They're great lenses and for the price of one Leica lens I can have three ZMs. And the 1,1/50 Nokton that gets pooed on in the forums? It's really a decent lens. The more I use it, the more I like it. Okay, so it's "not a Noctilux." Maybe. But whatever, I actually OWN the Nokton (which is more than I can expect for the Noctilux any time soon). I refuse to spend $6-10k on one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted June 20, 2011 Share #419 Posted June 20, 2011 My open letter to Porsche: To Whom it May Concern: etc. etc. Thank you Marc - I really enjoyed that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 20, 2011 Share #420 Posted June 20, 2011 +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.