new shape Leica

[zlatkob]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What I'm interested in is the simplicity, the immediacy, the directness, of the rangefinder and minimal camera experience.

....

the iPhone is simpler and more intuitive to use than an older Nokia or Ericsson cellphone. This is not retro or nostalgic - Apple have realised that simplicity and directness are virtues.

 

Agree with you there! The iPhone is a great device. I love it's simplicity and intuitiveness. But, and this is a big BUT, it is a very complex device. It has multiple sensors, multiple functions and an incredible software system with thousands of add-on applications. It doesn't look like any phone or other device from the 1950's. The iPhone is a modern classic. Despite that, Apple won't hesitate to change the shape when function dictates and when technology allows (they've already made it slimmer in the 2nd generation 3G). Likewise, I think it is wise to look at the M and ask, how can its functionality be improved? And if form follows function, what adjustments to form will better serve function?

 

I think you're right about directness and immediacy. This is the rangefinder experience. But not necessarily simplicity. Multiple framelines, parallax adjustment, removable baseplate, add-on wideangle viewfinder, viewfinder magnifier, rangefinder adjustment, etc. ... such factors do not simplify or create a minimal camera experience. A truly minimal camera experience is point & shoot set to program mode, or a Holga. I don't think the M is about simplicity so much as it is about immediacy and directness (as you mentioned) to which I would add compactness, discreteness, robustmess and quality. I believe that all of these factors can be maintained and enhanced with subtle changes in design ... starting with the baseplate!

[plasticman]

Plasticman. Your posts are quite emotional and represent your own perspective. But I fail to see any logic in them.

 

The "idea" of an SLR camera did not include live view until recently. At one time, the Leica was not only a rangefinder camera. It also was a view camera via the Focaslide and an SLR via the Visoflex. The "idea" of the Leica was not to be a rangefinder camera. It was to be a versatile photographic system. Some of the models didn't even have rangefinders. What you have in the present Leica M system is near a historical low point of system versatility.

 

Just consider that perhaps not everyone wants to use a Leica in as limited a way as you do. And by giving it more versatility they might sell more of them.

 

The gadgets and accessories that you refer to belong to another time in the evolution of the M-system, and were left behind long ago by developments in other types of camera - namely SLRs - which were naturally better-adapted for those uses.

 

Leica realised that the way to survive was to concentrate on their strengths - and that is to exploit the niche that differentiates them from all the other cameras. The process began long ago and is not a sudden decision on the company's part, as you see fit to represent it.

 

I would say that it was the times that Leica nearly 'forgot' what the philosophy of the M-camera really is that they were in the greatest danger of failing.

 

Now that they've regained the strength and self-confidence to express that minimalist philosophy in a digital camera that gives a unique and uniquely satisfying experience to it's users, I very much doubt that they'll listen to a bunch of temporary converts from the DSLR crowd wailing constantly for additional and unnecessary gadgetry which will simply reduce the camera to one amongst many of the same - not least because by the time a small company like Leica has almost caught up with the big-boys in the gadget race, Canon and Nikon will be well advanced on the 'next big thing' - thereby ensuring that the camera will appeal neither to the gadget-addicts, nor to their loyal customers.

 

btw when I don't want to be 'limited' by my M8 or RD1s (namely taking a snapshot or filming some footage) I grab another camera. Sheer genius.

[Advertisement]

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

[thrid]

The future will be EVFs. etc

 

Additionally the EVF will allow one to accurately focus lenses at their maximum aperture at close distances so it will stimulate sales of existing fast lenses and be the foundation for developing longer fast lenses that will further distinguish Leica from its competitors..

 

There is a similar debate in the movie business. A certain faction believes that you no longer need an optical viewfinder and that EVF is the future. As an example the RED uses an extremely hires, color unit (1920x1280) and it still isn't as good as an optical finder. The EVF also costs as much as an M8 body and people are still struggling with getting shots in focus. Most people prefer looking through the optical finder on a Arri-D21.

[AlanG]

btw when I don't want to be 'limited' by my M8 or RD1s (namely taking a snapshot or filming some footage) I grab another camera. Sheer genius.

 

So Leica's mistake was making an entire system in the past. That's a unique argument I never heard before. Yes some of that stuff seemed awkward to use when SLRs became popular. But with live view, the playing field is level and may even be to Leica's advantage. That's why I said in a another post that Leica may have a unique opportunity at this moment in time.

 

That should be Leica's marketing line. "We give you some of what you might need as a photographer, but you really should have some other cameras that we do not presently make. So we recommend that you also have a complete SLR system from Nikon or Canon... companies that we'll never be able to match." This obviously is more logical than just adding live view and a clip on viewfinder.

Edited April 15, 2009 by AlanG

[AlanG]

There is a similar debate in the movie business. A certain faction believes that you no longer need an optical viewfinder and that EVF is the future. As an example the RED uses an extremely hires, color unit (1920x1280) and it still isn't as good as an optical finder. The EVF also costs as much as an M8 body and people are still struggling with getting shots in focus. Most people prefer looking through the optical finder on a Arri-D21.

 

The entire G1 camera and lens is only $700 so how much could its EVF cost? Leica might still have some sway with Panasonic. I never said it would be better than an optical viewfinder. Just that it is better than having no way to see through the lens. You'd still have the optical viewfinder/rangefinder and the ability to add on optical viewfinders. The EVF would just be another choice.

 

Steadicam shooting is done while looking at an LCD monitor. And they follow fast action with it.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 15, 2009 by AlanG

[jaapv]

Now that looks a bit like the concept in this forum of the M9...Thank you for clarifying that, Alan.

Yes, the electronic Visoflex was not a serious proposition, Alan, you picked that up correctly.

The problem here is that there are two completely different views that cannot be reconciled.

People like Mani, myself, and many other traditional RF users buy the M8 as a digital morph of a rangefinder camera. Now the essence of a rangefinder camera is that one uses it to view the platonic idea of the subject with as little interference as possible at the moment of capture. Any addition to that, like staring at a little screen with a representation of the subject destroys the concept of the RF camera and is thus rejected.

[thrid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The entire G1 camera and lens is only $700 so how much could its EVF cost? Leica might still have some sway with Panasonic. I never said it would be better than an optical viewfinder. Just that it is better than having no way to see through the lens. You'd still have the optical viewfinder/rangefinder and the ability to add on optical viewfinders. The EVF would just be another choice.

 

I have nothing against Live View in the M9. You would get accurate framing, that is being feed directly off the sensor to the LCD and it doesn't change the concept of the camera. They may even be able to somehow manage that with the M8.x

 

I think the big fear with an EVF is that some genius would decide to dump the optical RF unit,

instead of making the EVF a hightech hotshoe mounted external finder, like a SBOOI

or VIOOH.

 

Steadicam shooting is done while looking at an LCD monitor. And they follow fast action with it.

 

There's a big difference between looking at a screen on a Steadycam and through an EVF that is replacing an optical viewfinder. Besides, you mainly scale focus with a steadycam, although the focus puller can focus via a wireless focusing unit. But even then it's guess focusing at best. In essence the screen is mainly there for framing.

[plasticman]

So Leica's mistake was making an entire system in the past. That's a unique argument I never heard before.

 

Go ahead Alan, misrepresent my arguments whichever way makes you happy. I'm totally confident that Leica knows where their strengths lie, so this sort of debate is merely a mildly interesting bagatelle of no significance.

Edited April 15, 2009 by plasticman
edited because Jaap's clarification makes perfect sense.

[jaapv]

 

That should be Leica's marketing line. "We give you some of what you might need as a photographer, but you really should have some other cameras that we do not presently make.

 

That is a very good summary of Leica's position since about 1930 - although they used to phrase it differently: "The rangefinder system is for those photographers that have the knowledge to discern between the different uses of an RF and an SLR system"

{ literal quote from Leica marketing about 1970}

[KM-25]

All this thread is doing is creating a venue for egos ( read: ego ). If Leica came on here in any official capacity and gave their points, then you would have some reasonable representation of sides that actually matter.

 

But as usual, this is not the case, so instead of having everyone represented, we have only a few *and* the usual suspect ramming their techno-know-it-all cr@p down everyone's throats on every ____ing page...

Edited April 15, 2009 by KM-25

[AlanG]

But even then it's guess focusing at best. In essence the screen is mainly there for framing.

 

And that is precisely what I do when I frame architectural subjects on the LCD via live view.

 

For any Leica naysayers, consider that the M8 already has an LCD. What is fundamentally different about checking a picture after you shoot it and checking it ahead of time? Especially for static subjects.

 

I seem to recall that nobody gave Guy Mancuso grief for using his 24mm Olympus shift lens on an M8 in a trial and error framing method. But you would have denied him the ability to use it more easily because of some philosophical view that the camera wasn't intended for that use? Is this a tool or a religion?

 

There's a posted video all about Leica - the factory, camera swaps, etc. It has one segment of a photographer shooting streetscapes at night. He's using a tripod and periodically checks his image on the LCD. Maybe he is judging framing, maybe exposure. I am not sure if he zooms in to check focus but he could. Is this the proper way to use a Leica? He's not even looking through he viewfinder nor is he reflexively shooting any action. Why isn't he using some other kind of camera? So why deny him having live view so he can work more quickly and use more lenses?

[plasticman]

Steadicam shooting is done while looking at an LCD monitor. And they follow fast action with it.

 

I'm realizing that this image represents how Alan's perfect M-camera would look - but he'd probably like some more buttons.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[AlanG]

I'm realizing that this image represents how Alan's perfect M-camera would look - but he'd probably like some more buttons.

 

Do you have any idea how much simpler this is than using a tracked dolly? A Steadicam is basically a simple mechanical pivoting device. Talk about minimalism...

 

http://www.steadicam.com/handheldmerlin.html

 

Anyhow the post was an observation that film and video shooters often frame on LCDs now.

 

I really try to refrain from making personal comments. For me this is simply a dispassionate discussion of the pros and cons of various features and design elements of a camera. I do not have a personal stake in it one way or the other. What will be will be. If Leica comes out with a camera that I find more appealing, I'll buy it. And I don't believe my ego is involved as it is not very satisfying to feel I have to work so hard to try to even partially sway one single mind. It's not as if I were getting a lot of pats on the back. So if anything, my ego is pretty frustrated and diminished by it all. Surely I should be spending more time on my business than on this topic, but it interests me as I do have an opinion that I consider to be fairly fleshed out.

 

It is very easy to throw out disparaging remarks, but is that a productive way to have discourse? I really don't care if anyone wishes to criticize me, attack me, or whatever. If you somehow feel the need to do more, go for it.

 

As for having two systems, a Leica and an SLR. Many have to do that now. Once upon a time I had a regular view camera and a wide angle view camera for the 47mm and 65mm lenses. This was expensive and especially bulky when I traveled. Then I got a single more compact view camera that let me use all of my lenses and even a wider lens. Unfortunately for Leica, when photographers have to make that single system choice now, it almost always favors the SLR.

 

Plasticman and KM-25 - sorry, but I don't know your actual names, if you want me to stop posting on this thread, just ask and that will be it.

Edited April 15, 2009 by AlanG

[KM-25]

Plasticman and KM-25 - sorry, but I don't know your actual names, if you want me to stop posting on this thread, just ask and that will be it.

 

Nah, just a little "Serenity-Now" would be nice.

 

But to be a full on gear head, I use a Kenyon KS-6 gyro with custom made grip and gimbal to mount either my D700 or a video unit on me or my snowboard while I ride. It's like a mini-steadicam.

[AlanG]

Nah, just a little "Serenity-Now" would be nice.

 

 

OK, but why come to this thread? When I want to relax, I put on ACDC.

[plasticman]

Plasticman and KM-25 - sorry, but I don't know your actual names, if you want me to stop posting on this thread, just ask and that will be it.

 

Not at all, it's been a distraction from a boring day.

 

As for the steadicam - I'm often on ad-shoots that require them, so my comment was meant as humor. I forgot to add the

 

I was gonna also do a car analogy now - Volvo for one purpose, stripped-down sports car for another - but somehow I think the steam's gone out of this thread, and I get the feeling no-one else is bothered with it anymore.

 

Let's face it, people bring up the whole 'let's turn the M9 into a do-it-all gadget-packed, live-view, electronic-viewfinder, HD videocam' on a regular basis - I mean naturally this sort of forum attracts gear-heads who'd rather talk about extra features on cameras than actually use the ones they've got.

 

Luckily the real Leica action is going-on out there without us. (stefan's link as an example only - I have no idea how he feels about gadgets - LiveView or otherwise).

 

And I'm done.

[AlanG]

I mean naturally this sort of forum attracts gear-heads who'd rather talk about extra features on cameras than actually use the ones they've got.

 

Well I shoot quite a lot. Of course business is slower than it used to be. I'm doing a lot of image manipulation on the computer and printing when I'm not shooting. I often post while Autopano is rendering. Right now it is all hypothetical to me. If Leica wants to attract me to one of its cameras, they'll need to make one that appeals more to me than what they now offer. The M8 just does not do enough for what I need in a camera for me to justify its cost. I like the idea of using a rangefinder for some things but it isn't the end all and be all for me. If it did more or cost less, I could justify it. (Business might need to pick up too.)

 

I don't see how my view of what a Leica should or shouldn't be able to do is any less valid than anyone else's view.

Edited April 15, 2009 by AlanG

[carstenw]

I don't see how my view of what a Leica should or shouldn't be able to do is any less valid than anyone else's view.

 

It is no less valid, but if you don't find Leica's products attractive, it is somewhat less relevant, unless they are planning to make changes deep enough to start interesting people who have previously written them off.

 

I am kinda curious why you post here, actually, given that you don't find their products interesting. Please don't take this in any way as a rebuttal or invitation to leave, I am genuinely curious.

[carstenw]

By the way, I am privileged enough to have seen Alan's specially comissioned Canon, and am happy to be able to post a photo of the back of it:

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sfokevin]

What!... No S Mode???