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

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I've read the last line of this post over and over and can't grasp what it means at all.

 

Personally, I do not see how the art of photography can be separated from the technology of camera designs, so that makes little sense to me either ... unless you are talking about commodity photographic products that sell like hot cakes? The early "revolutionary" Leicas never sold like the Kodak Brownies either.

 

There is nothing new about these technological assertions to make Leicas easier to use, more versatile, more convenient in order to sell more of them. The M is easy enough, versatile enough, convenient enough for those who take the time to actually use the camera ... enough. (see the Weston quote above).

 

You assert that camera companies must make products that are in demand and turn a profit, which I doubt few could find disagreement with. The question then becomes how to do that in a staggeringly diverse camera market fueled by mega corporations such as Sony, Canon and Panasonic? By becoming more like them? How long would that work? Who's pocket would Leica tap for that marketing blunder? On the other hand we do have to keep in mind that Leica is still here ... and making a profit ... primarily because of the M, not in spite of it.

 

I will continue to assert that Leica should concentrate on making more of what they are, not less of what they are:

 

Keep the rangefinder and apply any technology that can improve it without undermining its primary relationship to how the rangefinder photographer sees the world.

 

Use technology to make the camera the size of the M6 or MP ... not much smaller, certainly not larger to accommodate more techno-toys.

 

Make the M tougher: Back to durable finishes, seal it up where possible, tighten QC.

 

Put an adjustable diopter in the freaking camera. With no statistics to back me up, I'd still assert that an inaccurate diopter system is a chief culprit regarding inaccurate focusing.

 

 

Regardless of what they do, it will be too much for some people, and not enough for others.

 

-Marc

[AlanG]

Personally, I do not see how the art of photography can be separated from the technology of camera designs, so that makes little sense to me either

 

I mean it is the job of camera companies to make cameras. And it is the job of photographers to find the best ways to use them. Some people can be extremely creative with primitive tools and some can't produce good work with complex ones even if they have "mastered" the equipment. I think I masted a view camera pretty well but I never accomplished what Weston did. I just think it comes down to how each photographer likes to work. Some like to use all the "bells and whistles" and some don't. But there are top level photographers who take either approach. Some need more from gear than others. Photography is a very diverse field.

 

My last line is simply that some people just like using a Leica for a variety of reasons. It wouldn't matter to some of those people if another camera let them do more or produced "better quality" images. Otherwise perhaps they would use an 8x10 more often as Weston did. They are happy to photograph within the parameters of what the Leica can do or supplement that with another system. And Weston didn't try to shoot action. But some are attached to wanting to have and use a Leica M in various ways that are not always based on a purely objective decision. I don't see this connection so often or so strongly in other brands.

 

There is some kind of emotional connection at play. Why else is there all of this talk of essence, tradition, history, Leica glow, etc? I find this aspect of Leica's role fascinating whereas I used to just see it as a good camera system that also was prized by many collectors. It is almost like having a photographic "buddy" not just a camera. As long as this is the case, making a new model with significant changes will be very challenging.

[jaapv]

 

Put an adjustable diopter in the freaking camera. With no statistics to back me up, I'd still assert that an inaccurate diopter system is a chief culprit regarding inaccurate focusing.

 

 

 

 

-Marc

Hear! Hear!

[rosuna]

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.

 

Those economic constrains and reasonings are solid and Leica has to consider them when they have the opportunity to make the movement. At this moment they cannot, due to technical constrains. That hypothetic camera would need a 24x36mm CMOS sensor with live view capabilities, with a good response to a short flange distance and low consumption, and that is not here yet, not even for Canon.

 

The basic electronic foundations may be shared between the classic and the other camera, so even the natural evolution of the classical M body would approach us to that non-classic camera. I mean Leica will arrive to a point in the evolution of the M classical camera in which the possibility of a new type of camera will be a matter of marketability and concept and not a technical problem. But at this moment one such camera sounds like science-fiction compared to the current technology in the M system (pretty basic).

 

The S2 is a beautiful camera and system, and it may be a good business for Leica, I don't know, but it is difficult to understand it conceptually. It is like a professional system, when Leica has lost contact with the professional photography. But, is professional (classic) photography still alive? It is like a revenge after the historic failure of the R system, but even Leica's representatives consider the reflex cameras with prisms and mirrors at a dead end. It is like a vindication of Leica as a technology innovator and leader in a segment that evolves slowly, but Phase One (the later backs with touch sensitive screens) or Pentax (at a much lower price) have made similar demonstrations. I am thinking on the long term, not the successful short term.

 

So all are menaced or small niches. I wouldn't try to catch market by multiplying my offer with more niche-oriented unconnected systems or products. Leica needs to offer diversity but sharing a basic platform of components, technologies and software. That was the plan with the S2, R10 and future M cameras back in 2008, and that is the expected route for any improvements in the M classic camera or S camera.

[jmkays]

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

 

Sadly, this is only a slight overstatement:

 

One of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic.

- Lloyd Chambers -

[mwilliamsphotography]

I mean it is the job of camera companies to make cameras. And it is the job of photographers to find the best ways to use them. Some people can be extremely creative with primitive tools and some can't produce good work with complex ones even if they have "mastered" the equipment. I think I masted a view camera pretty well but I never accomplished what Weston did. I just think it comes down to how each photographer likes to work. Some like to use all the "bells and whistles" and some don't. But there are top level photographers who take either approach. Some need more from gear than others. Photography is a very diverse field.

 

My last line is simply that some people just like using a Leica for a variety of reasons. It wouldn't matter to some of those people if another camera let them do more or produced "better quality" images. Otherwise perhaps they would use an 8x10 more often as Weston did. They are happy to photograph within the parameters of what the Leica can do or supplement that with another system. And Weston didn't try to shoot action. But some are attached to wanting to have and use a Leica M in various ways that are not always based on a purely objective decision. I don't see this connection so often or so strongly in other brands.

 

There is some kind of emotional connection at play. Why else is there all of this talk of essence, tradition, history, Leica glow, etc? I find this aspect of Leica's role fascinating whereas I used to just see it as a good camera system that also was prized by many collectors. It is almost like having a photographic "buddy" not just a camera. As long as this is the case, making a new model with significant changes will be very challenging.

 

Well, I can elaborate on the "emotional connection" from strictly my point-of-view ... but I know others share this belief.

 

It isn't just a well engineered piece of kit. There are a fair amount of those around. It isn't just the size, which I do like, but I can manage a bigger camera just as well, and shoot in a stealthy manner.

 

So, what IS the emotional attachment to a rangefinder? For me, for what I tend to shoot, for how I relate to the world around me, it has the least distractions getting in between me and "what" I am shooting.

 

So it isn't just an emotional connection to the piece of gear, it's a love for the way you see and connect with the subject when using a rangefinder.

 

Let me elaborate ... what some see as a fault, others see as the prime advantage ... you do not see what the picture will look like ... what the effect any given focal length will have on an image. What you see is the "content" of the image pure and simple with no distractions. Rangefinder photography is more skewed toward WHAT the image is about, than how it will look.

 

Some folks recognize this in a conscience manner, while other feel it intuitively. Those who have never grasped this, or never stayed long enough to discover it, attribute the M attachment to other more frivilous aspects (which, is of course true to some degree ... but I am speaking of users not collectors ... nor status buyers which exist with most every top brand).

 

I believe this unobstructed recognition of content through the un-filtered rangefinder window may be one reason that Live View is of less interest to longer time M rangefinder users. (BTW, don't confuse chimping the LCD with this concept ... shooting is different from reviewing).

 

The other personal aspect that comes into play is that even though I use, and am accomplished with, other forms of highly evolved digital photography from APSC, 35MM, to top dog MFD, and in most cases they collectively are used more frequently ... my best, closest to my vision, and most humanistic and insightful work has been, and continues to be done, with a Leica M camera. I just relate to the world around me with it better than with anything else ... subsequently, I've almost never been without a M since my first M4 over 40 years ago. That is the most powerful emotional connection I can possibly explain to anyone.

 

-Marc

[wildlightphoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sadly, this is only a slight overstatement:

 

"One of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic."

 

- Lloyd Chambers -

 

A clear demonstration of cluelessness. And in public. I'm embarrassed for him.

[jmkays]

A clear demonstration of cluelessness. And in public. I'm embarrassed for him.

The objective outside observer might take exception. I'm a fan of this forum, along with a few other Leica virtual town squares, but there is an undercurrent of cult mentality that permeates some of the discussion. While that's true for Nikon and Canon groupies, it seems more pervasive amongst Leicaists.

[wildlightphoto]

The objective outside observer...

 

I'm sure most of us consider ourselves to be objective but there ain't no such thing. We all have biases and prejudices and will defend our purchase decisions no matter what the product is. Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Canon... it doesn't matter. No human is objective.

[jmkays]

I'm sure most of us consider ourselves to be objective but there ain't no such thing. We all have biases and prejudices and will defend our purchase decisions no matter what the product is. Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, Canon... it doesn't matter. No human is objective.

Perhaps that's part of the problem. We're too busy defending our purchases (ego) to respectfully consider differing perspectives outside our comfort zone.

[AlanG]

Well, I can elaborate on the "emotional connection" from strictly my point-of-view ... but I know others share this belief.

 

So, what IS the emotional attachment to a rangefinder? For me, for what I tend to shoot, for how I relate to the world around me, it has the least distractions getting in between me and "what" I am shooting.

 

 

I've got that and I know what a rangefinder camera does vs. other methods of viewing and focusing. (I've probably owned 30 or more RF cameras.) But it seems to me to go way beyond being attached to just the rangefinder unless it mostly has to do with it being more or less the only one to choose from. (If you want to shoot digitally.) There have been countless rangefinder cameras on the market but I haven't seen them generate the feelings people have towards their Leicas.

 

Maybe that has to do with supporting and defending pretty much the last manufacturer and fearing that any change may somehow polute the purity of the experience. Now I may be off track but if I felt that attached to rangefinder focusing, I'd want Leica to throw everything they can into this camera system to make it as up to date and as versatile as possible in every conceivable way that they could do it providing the price didn't go up significantly. Even if it is just as basic as adding an adjustable diopter or more complex such as having possibly a larger zoom viewfinder that could be interchanged with the basic one. (I bet Leica has already worked on many ways to change the rangefinder/viewfinder and other things as it is hard for me to picture German engineers who don't want to design and employ the most modern products and technology.) That would help ensure there would be a wider market for it and keep it viable. Plus if the camera had an optional clip on EVF for instance, some people could do everything with the single Leica M system and not need to also have a DSLR. Thus they could more easily justify the high cost.

 

That is why I threw out the idea of electronic rangefinder linkage and the posibility of several types of removable finders. A removable rangefinder and viewfinder would be very traditional for a Leica and is nothing new. But the resistance to these suggestions shows that the attachment is more than to simply having an excellent rangefinder/optical viewfinder experience to not wanting the camera to be changed much at all and keep it "simple." So clearly there is a lot more to it than just wanting rangefinder focusing as I doubt that these same users would want a 5DII that has the M's rangefinder/viewfinder and its own line of lenses.

 

It will remain to be seen what direction Leica goes with this but at minimum all electronic cameras get updated periodically to improve basic performance speed of operation and cost of construction. Some minor and certainly major changes may have to wait until Leica perceives a market for them. But when I was a kid getting into photography in the early 60s, I'd look at everythng Leica made and what it could do and the thought of "simple" never crossed my mind.

[wildlightphoto]

Perhaps that's part of the problem. We're too busy defending our purchases (ego) to respectfully consider differing perspectives outside our comfort zone.

 

Unless you agree with me. Then you're objective.

[diogenis]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

about design: not all the world understands about principles of engineering. Maybe you an engineer or maybe you wear xray glasses but not everyone is like you.

about the secret knowledge: I believe a couple pages back we gave some ideas to make the VF even better: built in magnification to accomodate for wide or tele lenses, built in diopter adjustments, RF patch for both horizontal and vertical shots, possible focus confirmation etc...

and finally about history lessons and sarcasm: it seems you excel in both, and it's a good thing if you feel happy about it, however, in the 35mm SLR world I won't be able to find a single dSLR made in Germany Dresden

[diogenis]

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.

 

Yes, but when I am like 18 yo and looking to buy some sort of a camera to learn photography, I will ofcourse turn to the dealers for new cameras. Well in there there is a chance 99% of them to quote me a japanese dSLR and 1% a German made Leica. Like 99% of them are dSLR cameras made in Japan. Now who first invented the autofocus or the SLR is maybe good for historians but has little to do with the market today.

[raizans]

if the sony nex-7 really does end up being like the konica minolta a2, i think lloyd and michael reichmann's dreams will almost come true, save for the full frame sensor. the a2 had an both an evf and an lcd that swung up and down, and had that more "digital" form factor common on bridge cameras with the lens all the way on one side and the grip on the other. throw in sony's penchant for adding more megapixels than necessary and a few carl zeiss lenses, and we have a pretty nice, compact, modern camera that isn't half bad at taking landscape photos and such.

[AlanG]

Yes, but when I am like 18 yo and looking to buy some sort of a camera to learn photography, I will ofcourse turn to the dealers for new cameras. Well in there there is a chance 99% of them to quote me a japanese dSLR and 1% a German made Leica. Like 99% of them are dSLR cameras made in Japan. Now who first invented the autofocus or the SLR is maybe good for historians but has little to do with the market today.

 

I used to work in a camera store and can tell you that a good salesman first finds out a little of what you know about cameras and what you are interested in doing with a camera. It is up to you to tell him you are interested in a p&s, a rangefinder camera or an 8x10 Sinar for that matter. I do remember one guy who came in for advice on buying an Instamatic. A salesman talked to him and got the impression the guy was more interested in exploring photography than he let on. He ended up buying a Minolta SRT101 and a few lenses. He came back and bought some more gear. Eventually, he became a professional photographer. I had one customer, John Ehrlichman, who came in wanting a small inconspicuous camera that he could use when hanging out with President Nixon. I sold him a German Minox C. I always wondered about that camera after Watergate broke.

 

So it will also depend on the kind of store you go to. But it has been a long time since many German cameras were priced low enough to be mainstream. This has nothing to do with if they were rangefinder or reflex cameras. We sold hundreds of inexpensive Japanese made rangefinder cameras for every Leica we sold back in the late 60s and early 70s. And back then an M4 with 50 f2 was around $500 and a lowly Konica or Minolta RF was around $100. So it was nothing like the price disparity that exists today between a Leica and a rather low end Japanese model. A Nikon F and Nikkor lenses was not much less than the M4 and Leica glass back in 1971 yet Nikons outsold Leicas by far. For most stores, any $10,000 camera with a lens is a tough sale today and few stock this kind of gear.

[mboerma]

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

 

I'm in some ways sorry I even started it.... someone else would have, I'm sure.

[Xmas]

A Nikon F and Nikkor lenses was not much less than the M4 and Leica glass back in 1971 yet Nikons outsold Leicas by far. For most stores, any $10,000 camera with a lens is a tough sale today and few stock this kind of gear.

Hi Alan

 

The F was sold current with M2 and M3, until 1967 when it was the M4 as you suggest, they sold about 700k F (before they went to F2) it was a system camera for pros, motor drive 36 o4 250 back etc.,....

 

The pros (some) still carried a M2 (as well) with 35m lux for a long time, (or Canon P with 35mmf/2). Not seen any pros with M9 & DLSR yet.

 

The nonpros bought F cause they thought it might make them like pros - Zorro typed that, oops.

 

The M3 rangefinder view finder was designed to stop the Barnack clones (with the patented M mount).

 

The Canon P had (has) just as usable a view/rangefinder, but is LTM

 

The M2 ('57) has a productionised (cheaper) M3 rangefinder, The MP and M9 are clones of the M2s with multi coating on all surfaces.

 

The Canon P and M2 were contemporaries, the P was about 1/3 the shop price (memory failing here) but did not sell much better than M2.

 

The ZM viewfinder is a modern finder/rangefinder but if your eye sight is not good it wont help you much, age is a difficult advesary, dont ask how I know... Change shooting syle.

 

Take up trolling...

 

Noel

[Red Dot Fever]

Just found some more fuel for the fire, in support of Lloyd.

 

The Online Photographer: Tsk, Tsk—Bad, Very Bad!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[johnloumiles]

A lot of technical bravado going on as per usual with this forum. Im not complaining as I actually find it compelling reading.

 

My thoughts on the subject are more emotional.

 

For a few years up until a few months ago I have been pretty ambivalent towards shooting. Film for my Mamiya was getting a little cost prohibitive to be shooting all the time plus the thing is a tank so that really limited my options on where and when to shoot. Sure I had a host of mid level digital cameras, most noticeably the G9 & 10 plus some Nikon DSLR (I don't even remember the model I had it so little time) along with a half dozen others. Then I just kinda trailed off altogether and spent my time perusing my library of fine art photography books.

 

Leica had always been a name I connected with extreme quality and extreme price. The last time I checked the prices of a used M8 was about a year after the release and they were still selling for just below 4k. Its one thing to shell out 400 for a camera but 4000 was just not possible and I was never a great saver.

 

Fast forward to earlier this year I finally made up my mind to stop messing around with glorified point a shoots with tiny sensors and get a quality DSLR because thats what serious photographers do right? Enter the Canon 60D. I got the grip for it and everything. The 60D did everything it was supposed to do, took great pictures to the point of filmic quality. I could even shoot a independent movie if I wanted to. Not only that I got an adapter so I could shoot my collection of M42 lenses and get even more grit out of the sucker. I should be happy, this is a great camera with every imaginable option!

 

I just didn't get it..I didn't get that feeling of excitement when I first started shooting 10 years ago. Maybe I'm just expecting to much from the experience and its really about the image and not how it got made.

 

Enter the X1. I saw, I loved, I emptied my savings account. That little camera lit the fire in me again. The fixed lens made me contemplate the shot I was about to take and re-evaluate my photography as a whole. What it also did was make me yearn for an M. Few months and another empty account later I got an M8 and a 40mm Nokton. Bells, whistles and fireworks exploded in my temporal lobe. I'm not going to bore you any more with a mushy love story but all I can say is that everyday I look forward to shooting. There is an emotional resonance with the process of shooting with an M, a desire to create something unique. I'm sorry that a DSLR did not deliver that. Some will say its merely in my head and that a little red dot is deluding me. Thats fine.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the latest greatest , what I need, what you need are not all the same. I feel like I'm not the only one that feels that way. Sure I'd like to have an M9 or M10 , but the M8 will not get sold to help finance it, no its staying with me for the rest of my life as I will always appreciate it for the camera that inspired me.

 

LFI Gallery - Neueste Uploads