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

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

.......

Leica need to worry about why they did not do a RD/1 first, and why the M10 took so long.

 

Noel

 

Because they can't keep up with the demand maybe?

[Advertisement]

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

[Fotomiguel]

Of course the M9 can be improved. My most desire improvements are not so difficult to add in the M10: Extern iso dial, Better LCD resolution, better batteries, better Buffer and processor. That's it.

I'm enjoying my M9 so much. It's a incredible camera that makes me very happy everytime I used it.

I like the concept of the fuji FX 100 not to substitute the M9 but to substitute the Leica X1. Leica should do a compact camera with viewfinder and manual focus and aperture ring. I would love it with a 50mm but that is not going to happen. And I thing that It would be cost almost the same as a M9.

Cheers.

[delander †]

On the other side of the river bank you have bulky dSLR cameras, loaded with "features" covered in plastic, cheaper alternatives but what if you really don't need them features? Do we really need to shoot at 15fps? Those that do need that, well they can't buy an M.

If you really buy the idea of seeing what the lens sees, then you do need a dSLR. Personally I don't buy that.

 

 

I would be very interested in a manual DSLR equivalent of the M9 with the looks of a Pentax Spotmatic.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

Does this mean you'll be against an M10 that has any of those improvements, refusing to buy it? Or will you perhaps just buy it anyway and suffer the penalties, bad as they are?

 

Depends on the amount of improvement, the tradeoffs, the price and my decision whether I need/want it.

[Dabow]

 

The old 75 Lux is wonderful, but tricky to set up in my experience, and it focus shifts as you stop down, so it's not so good.

 

One thing I'll helpfully recommend to you to get a much higher hit-rate with longer glass on the M9 is a magnifier if you don't already have one.

 

My M6 is a .85 and it's fine; the M9 is a little less magnified than that and so the 1.25x magnifier works wonders for me. Seriously, it's a godsend.

 

I'm not against focus confirmation either, as long as it would be subtle. You certainly wouldn't have to have live view on an M for that though.

 

I'm still waiting for my 75 Cron. I hear tell it's a fantastic lens. Getting hold of one though takes a lot of patience.

 

I use a 1.25x magnifier.

 

Focus confirmation would certainly be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure how effective it would be with small objects (i.e. Eyes in portraits) given the existing RF focus area. Anyway, regardless of how they address it, I'd just like Leica to improve over what's offered today.

[Dabow]

 

Totally agree with the above.

 

Also in response to some of the other commentators why invest so much money on a camera that is, in your eyes, so fundamentally flawed?

 

Strange.

 

For me, it's about size and convenience. As I get older I really can't be bothered lugging around a ton of kit. The M9 and M lenses make traveling so much easier and, as I'm used to FF cameras, the choice was limited. The offset is the flaws I have to put up with which I'm hoping Leica will address in the future.

 

So, perhaps not so strange with a bit of though, eh?

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does this mean you'll be against an M10 that has any of those improvements, refusing to buy it? Or will you perhaps just buy it anyway and suffer the penalties, bad as they are?

 

It's not a mindless black and white decision as you seem to insist on forcing it to be ... and "improvements" is a relative word.

 

This isn't the same as the M8 verses the M9. Those gains and penalties where easy to determine.

 

The M9 is a pretty darned good camera, therefore any upgrade would have to be very compelling ... so, unlike what you seem to feel is a bunch of blind adopters no matter what ... some of us, perhaps many of us, will weigh the gains against the trade offs to achieve those gains. To think there will be no trade offs is naive, and ignores photographic history right up to this very second in time.

 

What you may feel are "empirical improvements" may be seen as superfluous techno-junk unrelated to the M users needs, preferences, and method of making photographs.

 

"WE" are not all sheep or Leica Lemmings ... nor addicted to technology at all cost in the manner you seem to want us to be. Frankly, that is super-imposing the 35mm DSLR mentality on a rangefinder culture.

 

Personally, I don't care what they do with the next M digital ... just as long as they continue supporting the M9 with firmware upgrades and more/better software tweaks.

 

-Marc

[zlatkob]

Marc, I'm not suggesting anyone is a blind adopter, or sheep or Leica Lemmings or addicted to technology at all cost, etc. On the contrary, I believe that people very rationally buy improved products. This is especially so with a product that is perceived as nearly perfect, when the new model comes along and seems even a bit more capable.

 

What seems irrational is the constant dismissal of proposed improvements, even very good ones. In other words, why are people so militantly against improvements when they are proposed, and then most rationally in favor of them when they appear in the new product, so much so that they quickly buy the new product?

 

Your statement that gains have to be weighed against the trade offs to achieve those gains is correct. Sure, there are precedents to show that improvements can come with a big trade off. But there are also precedents for improvements made without significant trade offs: the M9 improved upon the M8 without significant trade offs; there was added cost, but it was financial rather than experiental. That's why I don't assume that every proposed improvement will somehow diminish the rangefinder shooting experience.

[zlatkob]

I'd wait until the camera was available and its merits & deficiencies known before committing or refusing to buy.

 

I would too! That's why I wouldn't be so quick to mock and dismiss people who suggest improvements to resolution, DR, speed, and high ISO, etc.

[zlatkob]

It's not that philosophical at all. It is simply a very well thought out product that manages to withstand the passing of time. It's not that difficult to understand what is it that makes an M: Besides the obvious quality which comes at a cost, small size, low weight, portability, and speed are it's core values. Coupled with the best lenses in the market makes this also an envy product. Those that can afford it are really happy owing it.

 

Obviously when one makes something for like 5 decades, all this legacy is yet another benefit for the camera, and the proof is in the sales.

 

I disagree with part of that. The question of "what makes an M an M?" is a question perfectly suited to the philosophy of design. The qualities you mentioned are only part of the equation. Just mention any changes to the viewfinder and you'll hear a ton of replies explaining how that is a core value.

 

Also, they haven't made "something for like 5 decades" because it's not the same "something". It has changed, going through various models from film to digital. With digital, the light capturing medium has changed entirely, and a computer has been added! So it is interesting to ask what are the core traits that tie those models together and that would make an unknown future model still be "an M"?

[AlanG]

Also, they haven't made "something for like 5 decades" because it's not the same "something". It has changed, going through various models from film to digital. With digital, the light capturing medium has changed entirely, and a computer has been added! So it is interesting to ask what are the core traits that tie those models together and that would make an unknown future model still be "an M"?

 

Despite the changes, may I point out that over the past 5 decades the percentage of photographers who prefer to use a rangefinder has dropped to the point that there is only one model of digital rangefinder camera (expensive or cheap) currently being made worldwide. Whereas in the film era, there were numerous uses of rangefinders on all kinds of cameras including a Zeiss rangefinder on Polaroids. What could be a reason for this near total disappearance? And what possible changes can Leica make that would increase the popularity vs. ones that would decrease the popularity of a digital rangefinder camera? Or is it a stupid idea for Leica to even consider trying to make an M or some other rangefinder system that may be more popular in the future?

[Lindolfi]

To be honest I never understand discussions about a product with a close interaction with the user like the Leica M, without referring to the user. Think about a Leica the first hour you used it and think about how you use it now: the interaction has changed. Look at how different two experienced users handle the Leica M. And so I think is not very useful to make generalized comments about the Leica M or the direction in which it would become better or even perfect.

[Jamie Roberts]

D{snipped}What could be a reason for this near total disappearance? And what possible changes can Leica make that would increase the popularity vs. ones that would decrease the popularity of a digital rangefinder camera? Or is it a stupid idea for Leica to even consider trying to make an M or some other rangefinder system that may be more popular in the future?

 

Alan, honestly, there are all kinds of reasons for not using a rangefinder. But there are very good reasons for using one, too.

 

Not the least of which is better optics, no mirror-black out and a host of other things that have been mentioned ad nauseum.

 

Fuji just brought out a brand new MF film Rangefinder no less! Now, if they make that digital (and why couldn't they?) that would be very interesting indeed

 

Fujifilm GF670 Rangefinder Folding Camera 16019089 B&H Photo

 

Note the shutter only goes to 1/500s. I'm sure there's lots of folks who will hate that. Still, there is market interest there or Fuji wouldn't produce it, would they?

[AlanG]

To be honest I never understand discussions about a product with a close interaction with the user like the Leica M, without referring to the user. Think about a Leica the first hour you used it and think about how you use it now: the interaction has changed. Look at how different two experienced users handle the Leica M. And so I think is not very useful to make generalized comments about the Leica M or the direction in which it would become better or even perfect.

 

But what makes someone even interested in becoming an experienced user of an M or any other camera for that matter? What I'm getting at is that perhaps the overall potential market for a high end digital rangefinder is rather small. And it may not be very profitable to change the camera very much or too often if that is the case. This may also be the case if it stays an M with a few more features or refinements.

[diogenis]

I disagree with part of that. The question of "what makes an M an M?" is a question perfectly suited to the philosophy of design. The qualities you mentioned are only part of the equation. Just mention any changes to the viewfinder and you'll hear a ton of replies explaining how that is a core value.

 

And why should we care how a camera is designed? It's not an object of art, it's just a tool to get you pictures. This is secondary to its prime virtues, which are perfectly easy to lay down, because they are mostly the same for every other product: miniaturization, weight, ease of use etc, etc...

[Jamie Roberts]

I would too! That's why I wouldn't be so quick to mock and dismiss people who suggest improvements to resolution, DR, speed, and high ISO, etc.

 

Zlatko, here's the thing, I don't think anyone is or will be quick to dismiss any of those things. But making a fuss over motherhood improvements just seems silly to me.

 

The same kind of thing happened when the M8 was a couple of years old... people started to get antsy over its performance.

 

But things like improved resolution, improved ISO, or better DR, to me are all basic statements about photographic technology.

 

So yeah,. as Marc said, "more" is better, IF (and only if) the inevitable technical tradeoffs fall to the plus side; if they don't, well, then not so much.

 

That will be different for some people than for others.

[AlanG]

Alan, honestly, there are all kinds of reasons for not using a rangefinder. But there are very good reasons for using one, too.

 

Not the least of which is better optics, no mirror-black out and a host of other things that have been mentioned ad nauseum.

 

Fuji just brought out a brand new MF film Rangefinder no less! Now, if they make that digital (and why couldn't they?) that would be very interesting indeed

 

Fujifilm GF670 Rangefinder Folding Camera 16019089 B&H Photo

 

Note the shutter only goes to 1/500s. I'm sure there's lots of folks who will hate that. Still, there is market interest there or Fuji wouldn't produce it, would they?

 

I know there are reasons some people prefer them, I just don't believe they have resonated with the overall photography market in recent years. And I'm not talking about film cameras. Yes, I've owned a number of MF folding rangefinders that were appealing because of the format and compact size. But they too almost disappeared along with the folding Retinas, Contessas, Agfa Karats, Vittessas, Olympus XAs, etc. I loved those camera designs and had a collection of them along with the larger Zeiss Super Ikontas, Bessas, and some other MF flolders. In the case of the Fuji, that is targeted at a very small market and it may be economical for them to do this. But I don't think it will be economical to put a large sensor into a fixed lens camera any time soon as appealing as that will be to a few. If anything, the trend will be smaller sensors in smaller cameras. I hate to keep using Sony as an example but if we are looking for trends in cameras, they are the ones trying to set them today with very small EVIL cameras. Maybe there is room for another trend though.

 

All I'm getting at is that Leica already serves the entire market for high end digital rangefinder cameras and probably isn't interested in making lower end digital rangefinders. It will be interesting to see if anyone else makes any kind of digital rangefinder with interchangeable lenses or not. But so far they haven't and I assume this is because they don't see a market for it.

[Jamie Roberts]

I'm still waiting for my 75 Cron. I hear tell it's a fantastic lens. Getting hold of one though takes a lot of patience.

 

I use a 1.25x magnifier.

 

Focus confirmation would certainly be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure how effective it would be with small objects (i.e. Eyes in portraits) given the existing RF focus area. Anyway, regardless of how they address it, I'd just like Leica to improve over what's offered today.

 

Ok, so please don't take this as anything but a helpful suggestion.... I agree I'd like better focus systems, calibration, etc...

 

But to be honest there are plenty of times when I can't focus on eyeballs with any camera system. They often don't have enough contrast to work with anything like a longer / faster lens for any of my Canon AF systems or for my Nikon D3 either.... unless we're talking static portraits where I can 1) use a center point 2) take multiple shots and bracket, in which case they're on par with the M9.

 

In fact, I find the rangefinder universally easier to to focus on faces in other situations--people moving or in complex environments fool modern AF systems so often that even experienced photographers think it's a lens thing. For example, my D3 is fooled in tungsten light: when I'm shooting a table full of people with an 85mm lens, at f2 or wider, all too often the camera chooses to focus on the high contrast crystalware in front of the subject--even if the focus point is squarely on the subject.

 

That never happens with the M9 but the same sorts of contrast issues can plague portraits with manual focus too... especially in dark conditions.

 

So I was given some advice long ago from some extremely accomplished event and PJ photographers that they try to focus, especially in changing circumstances, on the highest contrast item in the plane of focus with the eyes and go from there. Sometimes that's part of a suit (at weddings black suits and white shirts are very nice for AF systems), sometimes that's something else in the composition.

 

Anyway, that works for me. I know it's not "the" answer but it honestly keeps the hit rate high with manual and AF focus, longer lenses and larger apertures..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Dabow]

But to be honest there are plenty of times when I can't focus on eyeballs with any camera system. They often don't have enough contrast to work with anything like a longer / faster lens for any of my Canon AF systems or for my Nikon D3 either.... unless we're talking static portraits

 

Most of the portraits I've shot with the M9 have been casual. Some static, some spur of the moment. With the latter wide open it's always a hit and miss affair. If there's a catch-light in the eyes that always aids focus with an RF, I find.

 

So I was given some advice long ago from some extremely accomplished event and PJ photographers that they try to focus, especially in changing circumstances, on the highest contrast item in the plane of focus with the eyes and go from there. Sometimes that's part of a suit (at weddings black suits and white shirts are very nice for AF systems), sometimes that's something else in the composition.

 

I've used this technique from time to time. The problem is that with very fast lenses, wide open, you have to hit something that's on exactly the same plane as the object you want sharp, otherwise even the slightest variance will lead to softness where you don't want it. So it works, but only to a degree and there are limitations.

 

Oh for 20/20 vision!

[Xmas]

Focus confirmation would certainly be a step in the right direction, but I'm not sure how effective it would be with small objects (i.e. Eyes in portraits) given the existing RF focus area. Anyway, regardless of how they address it, I'd just like Leica to improve over what's offered today.

Your have just indicated that you are aware that focus confirmation is not a practical scheme that wold work, the Contax G1 and G2 dont work.

 

If you like a ZM rangefinder better than a M3, thay would be possible but getting Leica to adopt difficult at best.

 

Noel