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

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can explain the value of design as much as you like.

All the virtues I mentioned are there because of clever engineering, not design. Unless you imply that the Japanese, even after 50 years are still not capable of designing, because their cameras are simply bulky and heavy.

For sure design counts, but to a camera other things matter most. At least to me

 

That's an interesting thought... For me it's the other way around.

 

Design is what tells you what the camera essentially is, and how it's to be used. Design is the reason, I think, that many of us love the Ms and put up with the Nikon, Canon, etc...

 

Design is the principle of the thing, in other words. For the M, that's been repeated ad nauseum here, but I would list things like small, light, ergonomic in the hand, the optical VF / RF exeperience (not the mechanism), the unobtrusiveness, excellence in direct manual ergonomics for shutter, focus and aperture, not to mention optics(!), M lens compatibility, a look where form follows function, and overall ruggedness as key Leica design elements.

 

The engineering you bring to bear on these essential design criteria makes the thing actually able to be built and (somewhat) affordable. The better your engineering, the better you follow your design goals. I don't really care if the shutter on an M is mechanical or not. I don't really care how Leica makes its RF coupling (though simpler is usually better from an engineering standpoint)--as long as it does the things I want in conjunction with the design principles.

 

Anyway, to me, that's why the M digitals, even the flawed ones, have been largely successful and at the very least, fire the imagination IMO. They are designed to a very different set of criteria than the Japanese cameras. Consequently, the engineering brought to bear on them is also different.

 

So do the Japanese know how to design? Yes, of course... but they have very different criteria for their designs (with some exceptions of course... look at the x100, for instance... or some of the Ricoh products. The Japanese could do this, they just don't want to...).

 

I think a Canon or a Nikon pro body reflects their design goals completely and accurately. But I like the essential design criteria of the M more--they're more compelling to me and the way I photograph then, say, the ability of the camera to take movies recognize facial expression.

 

And that's why some people here bristle a bit when others suggest such things for an M camera. A lot of "features" are simply not important from the perspective of an M design.

 

Sensor, ISO, noise, DR--all come under "excellence of imagery" IMO; Leica will not forget these at all, IMO, and never have, within the limits of other parts of the M digital design.

[Advertisement]

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

[AlanG]

I think the Japanese camera industry certainly has done a lot of great design work aimed at better ergonomics, new features, and and a variety of models and lenses from large to very tiny covering all kinds of needs by photographers. Likewise Rollei, a German company, made some very ergonomic feature rich cameras that broke new ground but didn't sell that great - Rollei 3003 in 35mm and the Rollei 6000 6x6 series that were excellent and fairly unique cameras but had to compete with Hassy. So generalities of Japanese vs. German don't make sense to me.

 

Considering that Nikon abandoned the removable back design about 40 years ago I can't see it being an up to date ergonomic design choice that the M8 and M9 have a removable bottom plate. Likewise the retention of the shutter speed dial and shutter release positions are based on tradition and probably would not be the current chosen methodology if it were not part of the M design all along. For whatever reason, Leica felt it couldn't stray far from its 55+ years old design where other companies have been steadily evolving their designs, features, construction methods, materials, technology, and interfaces, for decades. Perhaps the M5 scared Leica from trying again. So they went back to the tried and true rather than risking another "failure."

 

For better or for worse, the M8 and M9 are an attempt to merge completely new image capture and control technology with an existing camera design rather than to rethink the entire concept. I am not saying this was the wrong approach, but it definitely constrained the design possibilities and they also didn't prepare their customers through gradual changes over the years. So now there is a very strong image among many owners that an M camera must never look or be much different than it is today because the design is now "iconic" and this is what many owners relate to. Whether this is the most functional design or not may not matter to many of them.

 

I think Leica is well aware of this whether it makes their designers happy or frustrates them. I think the Fuji X100 and other "nostalgic" designs are also attempts to capitalize on this image with some updated features rather than simply design for functionality. But today there is a much wider choice available among Japanese cameras than there are among German cameras and the Japanese manufactures have the ability to risk more design choices and are quick to pioneer or adapt new technology. Look at the variety of camera designs that Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Ricoh, Sigma and others have come out with in just the past two years. I bet that Leica simply feels it can't take many chances with the M. And they may be right.

[rosuna]

That may be right Alan, but, I think there is no easy solution to that problem. Many people like/want that retro look and feel. The design has its merits as well. I like it just as it is now, with the bottom plate, brass top plate, etc. including the retro look and ergonomics. Those characteristics are very important for some people, but may be a handicap for many other people.

 

That is the reason I fear any initiative from Leica aimed at a third interchangeable lenses system. It would be dangerous for the company and for the M system. I think any new system has to be based on the M system, which has to split in two branches. The classical cameras with manual focus lenses and classic rangefinder, with improvements in electronics and construction but preserving the essence of the classic. And a new type of M camera with free way for innovations and partial compatibility with the classic system. The priority should be to get as many synergies as possible.

[mwilliamsphotography]

I still don't get why something as successful as the M9 needs to be homogenized and folded in with the ever mutating digital camera crowd that's choked with semi-annual relearning curves and gadgets you may use once during your ownership.

 

Funny, Edward Weston may have said it best way back when digital wasn't even a thought yet ...

 

" ... few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel-cage chase from one new lens, to new paper, to new developer, to new gadget ... never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it. "

 

-Marc

[diogenis]

Ok, it seems you're just working with a different definition of design -- one that excludes engineering. Japan makes lots of small cameras, so I don't know where you're going with that.

 

Yes they do, but then these cameras suffer from IQ. Cameras are there to make photos. If they fail to do so, or if the photo is bad, then there is no point in using them. And If I wanted something beautiful I would go and buy art for example, not a plastic camera with some glass

[AlanG]

I still don't get why something as successful as the M9 needs to be homogenized and folded in with the ever mutating digital camera crowd that's choked with semi-annual relearning curves and gadgets you may use once during your ownership.

 

Funny, Edward Weston may have said it best way back when digital wasn't even a thought yet ...

 

" ... few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel-cage chase from one new lens, to new paper, to new developer, to new gadget ... never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it. "

 

-Marc

 

I think it is important to separate the art of photography from the technology of camera designs. These are two entirely different things and we all know that a good photographer can find ways to make nice photos with a pinhole camera. Whereas camera manufacturers have to make products that are in demand and turn a profit. There may be a bit involved in learning how a new camera works, but photography in its essence is where you point the camera and when you release the shutter. All a camera can do is make some aspects of this harder or easier, better or worse image quality, and give you more or less versatility or possibilities of what you can do with it. To that extent, the evolution of cameras has opened up new possibilities and have greatly increased convenience. (Any surfer can now attach a camera to a surfboard and shoot time lapse or HD video for instance.) How many care or are able to take advantage of any of this varies widely. It has always been so with the technology at any time.

 

It is just much simpler and easier for many to use current technology to make photographs today. And a lot of people who are not even serious photographers have realized this, buy all kinds of cameras, and many use them pretty creatively even if in the minds of some, they are not "real" photographers. Additionally, a lot of Leica owners are not interested in trying to become a "great" photographer either.

 

While I can see numerous ways that the M could be "improved" I can see why Leica and some owners would resist any changes because Leica M ownership implies a relationship with the design that can't always be separated from the owner's interest in photography.

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe I did not made my self clear: when I speak of design I mean how something is looking like. Colours, shape... the design. If speaking about design you also mean the interiors the mechanism and all, then this is not what I mean.

 

The very basic difference in philosophy of Leica is of course its Viewfinder with Rangefinder technology. This is what separates the Japanese school of photography as this was firstly introduced some decades back. Leica has a separate mechanism that is coupled to the lens to measure distances manually, while the Japanese had the idea to use a mirror box with prism to look through the lenses and see the whole picture.

Both systems offer benefits and tradeoffs and it remains to the users to decide what they need and which fits best their needs.

I suspect that it's quite easy for the RF mechanism to receive some R&D and get ready for an upcoming new M, but this doesn't mean that the current model is not working as it should. Nor that Leica should dump the entire mechanism for something else thus losing its identity and functionality. It's suicidal for Leica to dump this design and whatever sales record they have for something new and risky.

[AlanG]

Maybe I did not made my self clear: when I speak of design I mean how something is looking like. Colours, shape... the design. If speaking about design you also mean the interiors the mechanism and all, then this is not what I mean.

 

The very basic difference in philosophy of Leica is of course its Viewfinder with Rangefinder technology. This is what separates the Japanese school of photography as this was firstly introduced some decades back. Leica has a separate mechanism that is coupled to the lens to measure distances manually, while the Japanese had the idea to use a mirror box with prism to look through the lenses and see the whole picture.

Both systems offer benefits and tradeoffs and it remains to the users to decide what they need and which fits best their needs.

 

 

I don't get this whole German vs. Japanese thing. And sorry to be blunt, but you are incorrect about the "idea of the mirror box with prism." (Contax S or Pentacon from East Germany is generally thought to be the first SLR using a prism.) This is not to say that Pentax and other Japanese companies were not already thinking along similar lines. Rangefinders and SLRs were around long ago. I have a Kodak Autographic IIIA that is more than 100 years old that has a coupled rangefinder. And Graflex cameras were SLRs from long ago too. (And I'm not sure if others preceded them.) The Exactas came from Germany and Japan copied or were inspired by various German designs in SLRs and rangefinder cameras up until the 60s. (And even during that period they broke a lot of new ground in RF and SLR designs.)

 

A lot of people still like the size of the Minolta CL and I bet an updated digital version of this would be pretty nice today.

[pop]

... when I speak of design I mean how something is looking like.

 

That's not a reasonable use of the word. All the world understands by "design" the basic principles of the device, not just its looks.

 

 

The very basic difference in philosophy of Leica is of course its Viewfinder with Rangefinder technology. This is what separates the Japanese school of photography as this was firstly introduced some decades back. Leica has a separate mechanism that is coupled to the lens to measure distances manually, while the Japanese had the idea to use a mirror box with prism to look through the lenses and see the whole picture.

 

I hope the Japanese who founded that particular school enjoyed their stay in Dresden, Germany, as this is where the Germans produced the first SLR which can be operated the way you describe.

 

Both systems offer benefits and tradeoffs and it remains to the users to decide what they need and which fits best their needs.

 

This is a bit like eating vs. drinking.

 

I am quite sure that most photographers know when to use one tool and when the other.

 

I suspect that it's quite easy for the RF mechanism to receive some R&D and get ready for an upcoming new M, ...

 

Aren't the folks at Leica relieved at learning that it's easy to redesign the RF. Will you please share your secret knowledge?

[zimboom]

I still don't get why something as successful as the M9 needs to be homogenized and folded in with the ever mutating digital camera crowd that's choked with semi-annual relearning curves and gadgets you may use once during your ownership.

 

Funny, Edward Weston may have said it best way back when digital wasn't even a thought yet ...

 

" ... few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel-cage chase from one new lens, to new paper, to new developer, to new gadget ... never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it. "

 

-Marc

 

Best quote so far!

 

Thanks Marc for sharing.

Bernard

[Steve Ash]

I'm simply stating my honest opinion of the camera. You can take it personally if you want, though.

 

You are not talking about the camera but working with a cliche about the users. That is what my comment was about. Nothing else. I do not take it personnally as I have worked hard to buy it- same as all the M-User I met so far.

 

I do not contemplate on the use of a camera as jewelry and doubt it exists. I find bad comments on e.g. Seal (which you did not do but can see in other threads) rather annoying as he is really showing that he is passionate about photography.

 

Regards,

Steve

[John Ricard]

His best point is that it doesn't make sense for Leica to put effort into the S2 when:

 

1) They can't seem to make enough Leica lenses to meet current demand

2) There's so many improvements they could make to the M9 series.

 

I agree they should put 100% of their efforts into making and improving the M digital rangefinder series.

[AlanG]

I found this in Wikipedia -

 

"Large format SLR cameras were probably first marketed with the introduction of C.R. Smith's Monocular Duplex (USA, 1884).[2] SLRs for smaller exposure formats were launched in the 1920s by several camera makers. The first 35 mm SLR available to the mass market, Leica's PLOOT reflex housing along with a 200mm f4.5 lens paired to a 35mm rangefinder camera body, debuted in 1935. The Soviet Спорт (“Sport”),[3] also a 24mm by 36mm image size, was prototyped in 1934 and went to market in 1937. K. Nüchterlein's Ihagee Kine-Exakta (Germany, 1936) was the first integrated 35mm SLR to enter the market."

 

So it seems from this report that Leica marketed the first 35mm SLR camera. Although it was a modular design and could be used on Leica bodies whether they also had a built in viewfinder/rangefinder or not. In any case, they were trying to cover all bases with the Leica and Visoflex for quite a while. I think it was not until the MDa was discontinued that Leica Ms were only available as rangefinder cameras. I don't know when the Visoflex was discontinued but it was surely due to lack of sales not due to philosophy.

 

My personal view is that Leica should make as wide a range of the most advanced photographic tools as is possible. But of course this is not a practical approach for them at this point in time and they have to make choices about what the market will support and what segments of the market their resources will allow them to be competitive in. I am sure they know way more about it than what I know. When I offer ideas, they are just that and I don't expect they are likely to be acted upon. That being said, if Leica made a modular viewfinder camera as I described, and it somehow was under $10,000 with a lens, EVF and optical rangefinder/viewfinder, I'd buy it. However, maybe not many others would.

 

I assume they had good reasons to make the S2 system also. What is "Leica" about that camera? But of course in retrospect many of us think that they missed the boat a few times in the past. However even if Leica had made an SLR system in 1959 or was an early adopter of AF, that is no guarantee they would have been more successful.

[jaapv]

The viewfinder/rangerfinder of the M camera is its USP - it's the reason the camera exists.

 

As a method of focussing, it certainly works up to a point. The difficulties of using it in real world situations stem from it only really being accurate enough for digital when perfectly aligned and the need for a range of add-ons to support lenses which didn't exist when the idea was first thought up - wide lenses, fast lenses.

 

It's a near 60 year-old design which needs updating with new methods, materials and technologies and I would much rather Leica turned their attention to it than fill in another blank entry in the focal length/lens speed matrix.

You are always playing the accuracy card - do you have some actual figures?

[AlanG]

"It's a near 60 year-old design which needs updating with new methods, materials and technologies and I would much rather Leica turned their attention to it than fill in another blank entry in the focal length/lens speed matrix."

 

True or not, my guess is that the lenses are more profitable than the body.

[pico]

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?[....]

 

The relationship to lower demand for rangefinders might have a particular market relationship.

 

In my experience over the decades is that as film became smaller along with smaller cameras (Instamatic, etc), focusing became one of the very least concerns of the common consumer. While earlier guesstimate focus cameras of even considerable size such as 6x9 existed, they were still very expensive compared to the new paradigm of focus-free, cheap little cameras. Yes, along with the Instamatic we had some very fine SLRs because, in part, professionals required them but the public in general got them for some of the same reasons people buy an M today - to own conspicuous quality and for some to hope that more expensive meant better pictures.

 

[...] 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?

 

That, Sir, is the heart of issue, the conundrum.

 

What, exactly, are the demographics of digital Leica M owners and what do the majority of owners really want?

 

For example, for 35mm use I do not know if I am a typical M user. I am 65 and I've been using them since 1965 along with Nikon F. For the past 20 or so years it's been strictly M (for 35mm). What would I like - something probably impertinent to the majority - an easier manual focus (it's an age thing), and improvements in lens focus ring ergonomics (again, an age thing.) For the later, I get by with aftermarket or home-made gimmicks. For the focusing, I'll live with growing old and coping rather than find that Leica makes a terrible mistaken design on a new one - but I don't understand what focus confirmation means to the user. In fact, I don't know anything about it.

 

Who is is the motivated M buyer (who is likely to live long enough to fit the tech curve) and what do they _really_ want? Remember, Leica has a sustaining business model, not a disruptive one. It might be better when we think of Leica to consider them breaking off a separate division that can handle a failure.

[nggalai]

Let me enter the fray, at least for a short while. But the question Pico asked has been posed – in different ways – all through this thread. So I guess it might be valid to give my own “use case” of the M9.

 

Who is is the motivated M buyer (who is likely to live long enough to fit the tech curve) and what do they _really_ want? Remember, Leica has a sustaining business model, not a disruptive one. It might be better when we think of Leica to consider them breaking off a separate division that can handle a failure.

 

I’m a 35 years old amateur who simply enjoys taking pictures of stuff he’s interested in. I’m also vested in photographic film. I grew up with a Minolta rangefinder an uncle gave our family when switching to SLR. And after a 10+ years hiatus, I delved into digital photography just to learn the hard (i.e. expensive) way I was conditioned to rangefinders early on and both single-reflex and LiveView “feel” weird to me.

 

I don’t need to earn a living with photography, but I still try to achieve best results inside both the narrow margins of my abilities and the rather wider of my hobby. While having fun doing it, not wrestling with the tools I use. The only digital options I found in rangefinder-land were the digital Leicas and used-market Epsons, and as I already had recently acquired an M3 …

 

I passed on the M8s because I didn’t want to deal with IR filters and wasn’t too fond of its crop sensor. Not the sensor design per se, but as a greenhorn M3 user I really didn’t find it feasible to get two different sets of lenses just because the M8 had a different FOV than the M3. I need/want a normal lens, a short tele, and a wide lens. But a 50mm on crop is too short a “short tele” for my tastes, while a 35mm lens isn’t wide enough for me on a full-frame M3. (And 28mm not wide enough on crop.)

 

So it was full-frame that made me pay 2.5 as much for a mint M9 than a used M8.2. Plus the added convenience of working IR filtering on the sensor’s level. Three great lenses rather than six good ones which means about $ 4000+ in Switzerland, used. And the same FOV I’m comfortable with since “going digital” with µ43.

 

Suddenly the M9 looked like a bargain, both financially and ease-of-adjusting-wise. And in this respect, I doubt an M10 can add as much bang for the buck for me – as ironic this may sound considering Leica prices – with higher ISO capabilities, LiveView, or faster writing speeds.

 

Which also means: If Leica wants to market to freaks like myself, good luck!

 

Cheerio,

-Sascha

[GMB]

WOW! A link to an article that most consider rubbish generate over 150 posts in less than 3 days :eek:. Quite an achievement.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

His best point is that it doesn't make sense for Leica to put effort into the S2 when:

 

1) They can't seem to make enough Leica lenses to meet current demand

2) There's so many improvements they could make to the M9 series.

 

I agree they should put 100% of their efforts into making and improving the M digital rangefinder series.

 

A business plan based solely on current levels of demand for current products is 100% destined to fail, the only question being, when?

[AlanG]

... I think any new system has to be based on the M system, which has to split in two branches. The classical cameras with manual focus lenses and classic rangefinder, with improvements in electronics and construction but preserving the essence of the classic. And a new type of M camera with free way for innovations and partial compatibility with the classic system. The priority should be to get as many synergies as possible.

 

This sounds like a great idea to me if only Leica has the resources to do this and take the risk. Since they already came out with the S2, the company must have been motivated to expand in some way. And at that time determined that an MF system was the best way to go. If this doesn't make money for them, I can see them being a bit risk adverse now.

 

It could come down to the fact that they just don't see a larger market for an additional camera system at the prices that Leica has to charge for it. Even if they feel that at some time this will be needed, whether it expands the market or not, they just don't know when they'll need to make the move. And this will tie their hands in some way because at minimum the new lenses may have to also be compatible with the old bodies to minimize the risk in buying them. But if the new camera has an EVF, (perhaps in addition to a rangefinder) there can be some new lenses, such as longer lenses, zooms and TS ones, that are made only for that system.

 

I just don't know if Leica can see enough upside to take this kind of risk. It is very easy for us to come up with various ideas and suggestions. But somehow they thought the S2 was a good idea so you never know. I know I keep bringing up the Sony Nex and I am not trying to say that it is the holly grail of cameras. But surely other manufacturers look at it and go "How can we be competitive with this technology at those prices?" Some might be able to and others may not. But at least the M has a market of users who don't expect it to be competitive.

 

When Leica introduces a new non traditional M model with new lenses, it will start being looked at objectively mostly as a photographic tool that can be compared to the competition and not as an icon. So it might be harder to justify the high price.