Jump to content

M9 Redux


RSL

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was sorry to see that the previous M9 thread has been closed, since I was just about to post this. I know I'll get a tremendous backlash and a lot of vituperation, but here goes anyway:

 

Actually, the rapid changes you see in Nikon and Canon cameras are being driven not so much by the desire to flood the market with different cameras but by the rapidly changing technology. Let’s look back a little at what’s changed.

 

My first electronic light meter was a Weston Master – the kind that had a baffle you could open to increase the sensitivity. Before I got the Weston I used a gadget with a piece of graduated gray film in it that you looked through to get a reading. Guessing usually was more accurate. Light meter technology moved slowly for decades. In the fifties you could buy a meter that slipped into the camera’s accessory shoe. In the sixties I began to see light meters built into cameras. My Canon 7 had a selenium cell meter, but you had to be careful not to point the meter toward the sun. If you flashed the meter you’d have to wait several minutes before it would give an accurate reading again. It was several years more before we got really trouble-free in-camera meters for our film cameras.

 

It took many decades to move from cameras that used a knob to advance the film to cameras like a Rolleiflex that used a crank, and a rangefinder that used a thumb lever. During that same period film speeds gradually got faster, developers gradually got better, and color film became a standard consumer product.

 

In other words, without beating history to death, during the first fifty some years that I used cameras, changes in camera technology were slow and evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and so were the changes in cameras. That era was Leica’s heyday. The slow advances in technology let Leica test technical changes extensively before they incorporated them into their cameras. They concentrated on quality and reliability, and were rewarded in the professional marketplace because of the uncompromising quality of their product.

 

Then came the turn of the millennium and the introduction of the first digital cameras capable of producing quality results. In 1999 came the Nikon D1 at 2.6 megapixels. In 2000 along came the Casio QV-3000 with 3.3 megapixels. It wasn’t a professional camera like the D1, but it was the last word in digital resolution. Since then the pace of change in digital technology has quickened at an astonishing rate and the camera manufacturers have brought out wave after wave of new products to take advantage of the changing technology. In the professional camera field the basic concept of the SLR made it possible to convert the SLR design to digital, but the rangefinder concept had problems that were harder to overcome. Trying to get light from a lens close to the sensor plane into the CCD or CMOS photosites near the edge of the sensor is difficult at best. The light needs to be collimated so that it heads straight into the photon-capturing buckets instead of trying to get in from a sharp angle. Making it do that isn’t easy.

 

I’m sure more than one camera manufacturer took notice of the fact that there are millions of Leica lenses, finest in the world, out there and that if they could produce a workable digital rangefinder they might have a worthwhile market among Leica owners. Epson finally tried it, using the Voigtlander body as a base, and the product was pretty good, even though the sensor had to be fairly small. In the beginning there was a rush to buy the R-D1, but then the rush petered out and Epson had to admit they weren’t going to make a buck on the camera after all. For years the consumer market had been flooded with point-and-shoot cameras, both film and digital, and most people weren’t interested in a camera that required you set aperture and focus manually. The people most likely to buy the R-D1 were Leicaphiles, but a camera named R-D1 instead of M something, and without a red badge, just didn’t have the Leica cachet – the prestige.

 

Then Leica tried it. They came out with a camera that incorporated two interesting features: a sensor somewhat larger than the standard DX sensor used in most DSLRs and the R-D1, and a very thin low pass filter over the sensor that preserved most of the resolution the marvelous Leica lenses could produce. Unfortunately the rest of the camera had serious problems that no one at Leica caught before it was too late. In other words, Leica abandoned their historical approach and instead of thoroughly testing the technology before they jumped in, they just went ahead and belly-flopped!

 

Why did they do that? Well, the film market Leica depended on was drying up much faster than even Kodak had estimated. Leica tried to make a buck in the digital consumer-camera market by selling Matsushita’s cameras with a red badge under the Leica name but that didn’t go over too well. They tried to break into the pro DSLR market with digital backs, and that worked, but not well enough to let them keep their heads above water. It was clear they were going to have to jump into the digital world with a splash, and there wasn’t much time left to do that.

 

So now, where’s Leica? In many ways, the M8 was obsolete when it first came out, and it keeps falling farther and farther behind. Nikon recently came out with a full-frame D3 that’s light years ahead of the M8 in every respect except the ability to mount Leica’s lenses, but the new Nikon lenses are, in nearly every respect, at least the equal of Leica’s lenses. Yes, the D3 is heavy and obtrusive and not a very good street camera, but for everything else it’s superb. It has a fully worked out auto ISO feature, for instance, and an ISO range that’ll let you set up the camera just once, then wander around the streets, in and out of bright sunlight and in and out of dark stores, and keep on shooting without having to shift gears on the camera while you do it. It has a lot of buttons and a lot of complicated features that people on these threads seem not to be willing, or perhaps able, to deal with, but that complexity and the fact that you can use a zoom lens add up to tremendous flexibility.

 

When Nikon came out with the D3 it didn’t offer to upgrade your D2X to a D3. It couldn’t. It would have cost you a lot more to upgrade the D2X box than to just forget about the D2X and buy the D3. If Leica’s going to survive it’s going to have to learn that lesson. I keep reading posts by people on these threads who expect part of Leica’s “perpetual care” program for the M8 to include a full-frame sensor. Even if that could happen, which it can’t, it would be less expensive just to forget about the M8 and buy the full-frame M-whatever. If Leica’s ever able to put a full-frame sensor into an M, the new M isn’t going to look much like the M8 or any M.

 

But it seems to me that Leica looked at what’s going on with Nikon and Canon, and realized they weren’t going to be able to catch up. Kodak is gradually switching successfully to the new way of doing things, but Kodak is a huge outfit with resources far beyond what Leica can muster. Nikon and Canon got on the digital bandwagon right from the beginning and stayed with it. They don’t have to catch up. Others have to catch up with them. But the initial wave of Leicaphiles eager for the M8 has passed on, and I doubt Leica can find resources to develop an M9 that’s any better than the M8.

 

So, if you were running Leica, what could you do? Well, you could raise the price of the M8 to make Leica’s “expensive camera” cachet even stronger for Leicaphiles who want to wear the camera as jewelry. Then you could offer a “perpetual care” program for the M8 in which you sell things like a sapphire glass cover for the LCD screen, and a less noisy but less capable shutter, etc., all at absurd prices that add to the “expensive camera” cachet. But in spite of high-priced cosmetic changes the camera between the LCD screen and shutter will keep on becoming more and more obsolete. Eventually even the most fanatic Leicaphiles will get wise to the game and the game will be over.

 

It’s nice that Leica’s “…main motto about the M8 is ‘An investment in the future,’” but living up to that motto is going to be more than just difficult. I hope Leica survives, but pretending that the M8 is a hit out of the ballpark isn’t going to help them do it. To solve a problem you first have to admit there’s a problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes, the D3 is heavy and obtrusive and not a very good street camera, but for everything else it’s superb.

 

 

 

 

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

 

its no good as a lifestyle camera, you can't take it to the park or your kids birthday .. you'll just look like a berk.

 

its no good for car photography... i can hold an M8+90cron far far steadier for a panning shot and have 2 or 3 stops in hand !

 

its no good for sports because someone in the grandstand will nick it and punch you in the face

 

its no good for weddings because its just too big and it will just frighten people especially with a 28-70 on the end of it

 

 

its no good for fashion because its rubbish comapred to an H3D

 

and as you say its a complete non-starter for street photography, or reportage, photojournalism, war photography or anything that requires a body with little inertia, something inconspicous you can move around a lot and frame with very very quickly

 

its probably good for the press though who already carry around cart loads of gear and it might be good if you are inside a fake tree for 10 hours on the trot waiting to shoot a Cheetah's eyebrow 3 miles away with a tripod

 

 

the D3 just came out, the M8 came out sometime ago... give Leica a chance ffs

Link to post
Share on other sites

its no good as a lifestyle camera, you can't take it to the park or your kids birthday .. you'll just look like a berk.

 

But if what you want is pictures you'll take it because it's the best thing on the market, and if you're really interested in pictures you don't care whether or not you look like a "berk."

 

its no good for car photography... i can hold an M8+90cron far far steadier for a panning shot and have 2 or 3 stops in hand !

 

And the M8's zoom lenses with vibration reduction really make car photography a lot easier?

 

its no good for sports because someone in the grandstand will nick it and punch you in the face

 

Better check with some of the sports photographers who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

its no good for weddings because its just too big and it will just frighten people especially with a 28-70 on the end of it

 

Better check with some of the wedding photographers who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

its no good for fashion because its rubbish comapred to an H3D

 

Anyone trying to do serious fashion photography with anything less than a medium format camera is a lunatic anyway.

 

and as you say its a complete non-starter for street photography, or reportage, photojournalism, war photography or anything that requires a body with little inertia, something inconspicous you can move around a lot and frame with very very quickly

 

You should read more carefully. I didn't say anything of the sort.

 

Actually, the main problem with your funny response is that you didn't address the question. The burden of my argument is that if Leica's going to survive they'll need to learn how to handle rapid technological changes, and they can learn that from outfits like Nikon and Canon. The idea of "perpetual care" for the M8 is a non-starter unless the whole idea is to have a camera you can wear as jewelry and brag about. If Leicaphiles want Leica to survive and make fine cameras they're going to have to get off the M8 bandwagon and talk seriously to Leica about the camera's shortcomings and what to do about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

\

So now, where’s Leica? In many ways, the M8 was obsolete when it first came out, and it keeps falling farther and farther behind.

 

The film M's have been hopelessly obsolete for 20 years yet they still had a loyal following among documentary and art photographers and a certain segment of photo journalists. So no surprise that a digital camera based on a camera has not been improved since the 1950's (the M3 still being the benchmark for all M's) would be obsolete on launch.

 

It seems to me the attraction of the M lies in its viewfinder and compact size which the M8 manages to preserve and it's excellent lagless shutter release and quiet shutter which the M8 missed the mark on by an unfortunately wide margin but may be fixed by the coming upgrade. Image quality or electronic features has very little to do with it. The M8 compared to color 35mm film especially fast 35mm films has more then adequate IQ. The truth is in digital just about every manufacturer makes at least a few excellent lenses that when married to any digicam from an M8 to a prosumer DSLR or a 1Ds MKIII will make images that in a 9 x 12 print will be indistinguishable from each other (shots with wide open Noctilux or Lens Babys excepted).

 

Looking through an RF finder is just a fundamentally different way of seeing then an SLR and for certain types of work some photographers prefer it's transparent window to the cropped view-narrow DOF representation of the scene of an SLR. If Nikon or Canon had the financial motivation to make a DRF maybe we would have a better, cheaper DRF camera. But the tiny RF market is not likely to attract any competition for Leica any time soon so the M8 remains in a class of one. So if you want digital and you want a compact RF camera that can give at least 35mm quality you have one choice. It's far from perfect but it's closer to an M then any DSLR so I'd say it meets my minimum requirements. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the M9, the M8 is doing just fine with it's 35/1.4 Summilux. I don't really need more pixels or a bigger sensor. I might consider the shutter upgrade though as the M8's shutter is really the single worst part of the camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Russell is right in much of what he says . Sapphire glass shutter upgrade are all right on the money of russell's judgemenst. Handling and light weight and nice lenses are what keeps me with the m8 and also the mush of the 5d shutter release. The nikon d3 is nice but no fast wides it weighs a ton it is an assignment camera not an every day I wonder what the world will bring me camera. I have a 1dsmk111 great camera but again not a walk around for no good reason camera. The m8 should be $2500 for its specs not 5 grand. The shutter upgrade should be 500 not over a grand. David

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell's interesting posting was well thought out and I agree with the general thrust of what he has to say, but I'll continue to happily use my M8 because I like its size, its handling and what it does.

 

I agree as well. Sure there is a D3 on my equipment list for later this year. I'll use it for work. Sometimes you need a camera that will auto everything to get the job done. When I'm working in certain environments, I don't want to think. I just need to get the shot. Size does not matter, but frame rate and VR zooms do. But that's work.

 

My M8 is for for personal work. It's for walks along the sea on a Sunday afternoon. Its for when I have the time to set Fstops and shutter speeds to get what I'm after. The size and weight are perfect. So, bring on a full frame M9. I'll buy one. Even though my M8 is perfect for how I use it, a full frame M9 with a 35 cron would be even better.

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we really have to go through this (again)? Why can't we just let everyone use whatever gear he/she wants to use for whatever reason he/she has for that. Get a life, go out and take photos.

 

No, of course we don't. But it is curious to note how many of the long-winded M8 love-hate postings are prefaced with something to the effect of, "I am so tired of discussing this, but..."

 

If all our grousing really is a help to Dr. Kaufmann and company, then I guess it's worth it. But that doesn't stop me from getting exasperated with us from time to time.

 

Over time, what has struck me most about the discord surrounding the M8 is the passion that this community shares for Leica and its products old and new, classic and modern, good and not entirely good.

 

 

-J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is obsolete? Why do we insist on moving to the next revolution in technology before we can even catch our breath? How long can we sustain the pace? Frankly, I still remain willing to live with the limitations of a digital M8 rangefinder that is considered obsolete because of what it is capable of producing, and that is the bottom line. The M camera will never be for everybody, but the M8 remains my favorite camera even though I have two Canon's with way more technology. I'm O.K. with Leica being a small company. I think some of the stuff they are doing is nuts, like the saphire glass, but I don't have to go for stuff like that, for me it's all about the quality of the image. The M8 image is more revolutionary than anything else out there in its class, especially the B&W files, these can't be beat!

 

Cheers,

Wilfredo+

Benitez-Rivera Photography

Link to post
Share on other sites

{snipped}But the initial wave of Leicaphiles eager for the M8 has passed on, and I doubt Leica can find resources to develop an M9 that’s any better than the M8.

{snipped}

 

I don't know, I haven't 'passed on'--what a strange thing to say--and I was in the initial wave of buyers, though not, at that point, a Leicaphile.

 

I have found I like using a rangefinder for events much more than an SLR; I still use a couple of different SLRs for other work. And for every advantage of a zoom, there is a tradeoff with a small prime as well, even with Nikon's wonderful zooms.

 

But the M8 upon release was hardly obsolete, and it's quite silly IMO to even start down that path. For me, in every single *important* way it was as good or better than my 5d or 1ds2, and both those cameras cost as much or more as the M8 when it was released.

 

As for image quality and look, it's of a peice with the DMR and that's exactly what I expected. It still puts many digital cameras out there to shame IMO.

 

About the only thing you've said that would entice me about the D3 is auto-ISO shift, which would be a nice feature if implemented well; it's nothing Leica couldn't incorporate as a firmware change, however.

 

Oh, and yes, I'd like the higher ISO of the Nikon too. Yes, I'd like no IR filters. Wait for Photokina and we'll see what Leica will do.

 

So far, though, I've seen no shot // print at all from any Nikon or Canon at lower ISOs that would make me say the M8 aquits itself badly. On the contrary--even with my own mixed shooting I constantly gravitate towards the M8 shots and prints. Sometimes I'll even surprise myself.

 

The bottom line is that for me--and for others like me--I like using a rangefinder and an M8 more than my other cameras for the kind of work it excels at. You may not like it as much, but since you don't have one, you also haven't worked it through the tens of thousands of shots some of us have :) I know you have film Ms; they're not the same (I know, they're better: I have an M3 and M6 too.).

 

Most importantly, ergonomics doesn't change year to year. Is the M8 missing a a list of mostly unnecessary (to me) gee whiz features? Yes. But I don't want a camera to do the thinking for me, 99% of the time (though ISO-shift, again, as an aid to holding a manually selected shutter and aperture setting in changing light would be much appreciated).

 

But the user experience and handling of the camera is anything but obsolete: hands and eyes haven't changed much in 50 years and so the ergonomics of the M8 are still the envy of many a designer. There's a reason the M8 won design awards you know, and it wasn't just retro chic. It's truly wonderful in the hand. As good as previous Ms? Perhaps not--but still an M and still a great way to make pictures.

 

Buggy? Well, yes--there are still image artifacts that I'd really, really like Leica to fix, so if anyone from Leica is bothering to read this, the green streak artifact needs addressing.

 

I actually believe that artifact alone is inhibiting Leica from making inroads in new markets, and so they need to address it.

 

(and it's funny--the one other forum I post a fair bit in someone just commented that everyone complains about how crummy their new Canons and Nikons are and give the M8 a miss :))

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammers, both the M1 claw hammer and the M2 ball hammer, have not been materially updated since the Late Iron Age. Electrical and pneumatic hammers that do all the work for you are available. So why do companies produce these obsolete hammers? And even more curious, why do people insist on owning and even USING these obsolete hammers?

 

A camera is a tool. A tool that does efficiently what you want it to do is not obsolete. It is just efficient.

 

The old man from the Late Iron Age

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is very simple. When I want to take photographs I take a rangefinder camera. When that doesn't work for reasons like tele or macro I take an SLR. I might like a D3 for the second, but as long as I am happy with my DMR it is OK. The DMR is obsolete, but I happen to like the results and ergonomics and lenses.

 

The M8 is state-of-the-art. There simply is no more advanced digital rangefinder on the market. It will become obsolete when a more advanced digital rangefinder becomes available. My guess is that will be quite some years from now

.

I find it a bit of semantic play to call a product obsolete, and then, because there is no more advanced product available, to point to something completely different.

 

No offense meant, Russel ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell, your long review has surely some points in which I can agree at all... surely if Leica wants to be a player (simply a player, NOT a leader) in the DSLR market, they really have to look at what Ni/Ca make... THEY are the leaders, THEY set the trend because can enjoy an investiment bunch Leica can't afford in such accelerating technologies.

 

But M8 is different story : why define it "obsolete from the birth" ? 10 MP wasn't indecent at the end of 2006... nor 2500 ASA as top sensitivity... and did another Digital RF enter the market after M8, with capabilities that make M8 look "old" ? : no, M8 is "obsolete" only in a different sense, not related to the M8 as a digital camera: that RF has been replaced by SLR as the main photo platform for thousands of pros... a story well known from 30 years about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't we just go through this last week? And I know I wasn't alone in saying that you can't compare apples and oranges so why do we keep on doing it? Both the Nikon and the Leica are great cameras - but they are NOT comparable.

First how can we realistically compare an SLR to a rangefinder?

Second: how can we compare a 100 years of Leica glass to Nikons 50? and

Third: how can we compare a German optics company to what has become a Japanese electronics company?

 

My philosophy Professor had a nice scientific word (which I have forgotten in the 27 years since I last had philosophy :) ) about arguments that seem to make a point but are actually moot. Come on - we are not politicians! - we're either pros or passionate amateurs who want to take pictures - and one guys rig is what is right for him but maybe not the next one.

(Anyone who is actually both - a politician and a photographer - I apologize :))

 

Lee

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

its no good as a lifestyle camera, you can't take it to the park or your kids birthday .. you'll just look like a berk.

"But if what you want is pictures you'll take it because it's the best thing on the market, and if you're really interested in pictures you don't care whether or not you look like a "berk."

 

Russel, Jackal

 

I'll always look a berk with my M8 - sadly, its my last name.

 

LouisB

 

PS Can we stop these pointless threads, please, moderator?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis

 

If people think that they are pointless, they should stop responding to them, and they will quickly die a death.

 

I am not sure why the same thing needs to be discussed ad nauseam, but if people get something out of it, then that's up to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The nikon d3 is nice but no fast wides it weighs a ton it is an assignment camera not an every day I wonder what the world will bring me camera.

 

David

 

David,

 

I respectfully disagree here - I own the D3 and the fantastic 14-24 f2.8, which is way faster and wider than anything you can put on a M8. The WATE is f4, and starts at 16mm (21 FOV); the CV 15mm is f4.5, and is about 20mm FOV; the CV 12mm is f5.6, and is about 16mm FOV. In my book, 14mm f2.8 is WAY wider and WAY faster than 16mm f5.6 but, of course, YMMV.

 

If you go to not-so-wide lenses, the 28 f1.4 Nikkor is faster than any Leica or third party 28mm; and wider than any 28mm on a M8 anyway, considering the 1.33x crop factor; the 35 f1.4 Lux, fastest wide on a M8, is a 50 f1.4 FOV which - again in my book - is not so wide...

 

So, I am not sure on what you base your statement, but - again - I have to disagree with you here. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...