Ascough on the M9

[ShyTot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

see: Rangefinder Photography - Jeff Ascough's Blog

 

 

"sure it will sell in bucket loads" and "For street shooting the Leica still reigns supreme, but I'm not sure for how long. The Canon G11 is smaller, totally silent and less obtrusive - obviously it lacks the responsiveness and build quality of the Leica but it won't be long before the small compact market catches up with the rangefinder, and then things will get really interesting when it comes to the street/documentary marketplace."

 

Balanced views, positives and a couple of negatives.

[Advertisement]

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

[arthury]

I am waiting for people in this forum to start throwing rotten eggs ... none yet ...

 

I would say that this is refreshing to read and, definitely, a pleasure to have a glimpse from a perspective of a pro who was once an avid user of M bodies.

 

Please do not tell me that his techniques are wrong (like Erwin) and he was paid by Canon/Nikon. Everything he said were from the practical side of things and clearly, he did bring out the strengths of rangefinders.

 

Thanks, for sharing the link. I enjoyed it.

[AlanJW]

He hasn't worked with an M8 but he is astute enough to say that his business is putting nails in boards and he has not been successful using a Philips Head screwdriver to do that. Reasonable heads could disagree whether M's are or are not good for weddings (some people here seem to do very well with them). But to say that a Canon G11 will compete with and replace Leica as a tool for street shooting (I.em candids) is kind of silly

[ulrikft]

He hasn't worked with an M8 but he is astute enough to say that his business is putting nails in boards and he has not been successful using a Philips Head screwdriver to do that. Reasonable heads could disagree whether M's are or are not good for weddings (some people here seem to do very well with them). But to say that a Canon G11 will compete with and replace Leica as a tool for street shooting (I.em candids) is kind of silly

 

He is saying that future generations will compete and maybe replace. You should try to argue the actual quote, instead of making up a strawman that can easily be picked apart.

[glenerrolrd]

His points ,of course,represent a valid and well thought thru perspective.

 

There are quite a few examples of excellent wedding photographers that swear by there M s . There are all very proficient photographers and could do great work with a DSLR as well. My experience is that the my M images have a distinctive look. Less perfect in framing ,exposure and focus than I could do with a DSLR....but somehow better and capturing the moment. I think it would be safe to say that it requires greater skills and effort to shoot a wedding with an M....only the individual can decide which is better.

 

Street shooting,however,the M particularly the M9,is in a class by itself. For street you need a camera that has minimal shutter lag..not a G11. You need reasonable high ISO ...1000..with excellent quality ..not acceptable with major post processing.

 

The biggest issue with the M9 for street is ...it darn expensive to be walking around with an M9 and even a few summiluxes. There are a lot of places I would rather have a G10 . The M9 may be too nice for many street applications.

[johnbuckley]

No reason to throw eggs, but also no reason to agree with him. He doesn't appreciate the rangefinder aesthetic sufficiently to use one anymore. His loss. What he dislikes about the viewfinder/rangefinder POV is exactly what some of us like: that your composition has to be envisioned, that you frame your shot within framelines. He appreciates the fact that you see aspects of the shot outside of the framelines, but it just doesn't work for him. Fine. But, the line about the G10 is a dissing of the M9, and let's just say we disagree. JB

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I owned a G10, Not sure if the IQ is any better with the G11 but every time I took a shot I liked with the G10 I's say to myself "I wish I was carrying my M8". So I stopped using the G10 and then sold it.

 

There is only one reason the M9 will sell bucket, that is because people like it.

My only hope is there are those that do buy one that don't really like it and sell it. That is about the only way I will be able to have one.

 

If Leica can make a camera something like the X1 with either a very good zoom or have interchangeable lenses and have IQ like the M8/M9 then that very well may kill off the M line.

I don't see other camera/lens makers even coming close to the quality of Leica lenses, let alone reducing the strong AA filter most use in front of there sensors.

[arthury]

I owned a G10, Not sure if the IQ is any better with the G11 but every time I took a shot I liked with the G10 I's say to myself "I wish I was carrying my M8". So I stopped using the G10 and then sold it.

 

That's a fair way to evaluate it. At the least, you have tried both and chose the one liked.

 

[...]I don't see other camera/lens makers even coming close to the quality of Leica lenses, let alone reducing the strong AA filter most use in front of there sensors.

 

Not sure if you have read Erwin's lab tests comparing the Nikon D3X and the M9 based solely on IQ alone. He seems to think that the M9's thin glass (with no AA filter) did not accomplish much even though theoretically, it should enhance the resultant IQ significantly.

[denniswong]

He hasn't worked with an M8 but he is astute enough to say that his business is putting nails in boards and he has not been successful using a Philips Head screwdriver to do that. Reasonable heads could disagree whether M's are or are not good for weddings (some people here seem to do very well with them). But to say that a Canon G11 will compete with and replace Leica as a tool for street shooting (I.em candids) is kind of silly

 

Present sensor technology was said to have reached about the maximum with present sensor material, suggesting that not much more can be achieved, but we won't be able to predict what the scientists can bring about in the future, there is always a good chance that some future models of point and shoot cameras or even image taking cell phones can better today's M9 in image quality, but I don't believe Leica will sit with the M9 and go into hibernation from here on.

[pascal_meheut]

. He seems to think that the M9's thin glass (with no AA filter) did not accomplish much even though theoretically, it should enhance the resultant IQ significantly.

 

You mean except compensating for 25% less resolution on the M9? And offering excellent all over-the-field IQ with lenses not designed for digital, even wides? And even with some older lenses? And much closer to the sensor and so with an higher angle of incidence?

 

Yes, this is not an accomplishment, especially in a smaller and cheaper body

[BerndReini]

No matter how much time passes and what technology brings: you cannot surpass a larger sensor. Look at August Sander's large format portraits of the 1920s. They have a three-dimensional quality that no small sensor will ever be able to achieve. Resolution is not everything. And yes, the G-series from Canon has already surpassed the Leica Ms in popularity. Every second tourist in Hollywood carries either a Canon G10/11 or a Canon DSLR, possibly a Nikon. But you know what, Leica is not trying to compete with these cameras with the M9 and people who shoot with the M9 will not settle for that kind of camera. Micro four-thirds, maybe.

[coup de foudre]

people are getting their knickers in a twist -- all because of a personal opinion blog?

 

i, personally, love his actions and think they're brilliant, but i really could care less about what cameras he chooses to use and/or what he thinks about them. not that i think he shouldn't write about it -- simply that people are treating this as a review, rather than opinion, when he's never touched the M9.

 

to me, the most interesting part of the article by far was how gorgeous the texture and draw was from the M6 images vs. his usual wedding photos. i also liked the way they were framed better, rather than his usual precision -- they had more life and breath to them.

[bybrett]

It's a view, not a review - and a very interesting one at that. JA seems to have moved on and he now sees his world of weddings through an SLR window. The only tenuous link for me was the G11 remark.

[sean_reid]

Leaving aside the G11 comment, Jeff's post mostly seemed to explain why he now prefers SLR cameras to rangefinders. They each have their pros and cons and how can one argue with a preference? I, personally, much prefer to use RF cameras *because* of the way they show me the subject whereas Jeff prefers SLRs because of the way *they* show him the subject. Photographers have been choosing based on these preferences for over 40 years now.

 

If Jeff now finds that SLRs work better for the ways he likes to see the subject than that's great. It certainly gives him a lot of cameras to choose from and he certainly is not alone. I don't think he's knocking the M9, per se, but just explaining that he's not an RF wedding photographer any more. By the same token, those of us who prefer RF cameras are not necessarily knocking any given SLR.

 

Some of the aspects he didn't like about the M8 were improved with the M8.2 but that's really beside the point ultimately. He wrote about a question that I think is very important (for a serious photographer at least) to consider when choosing an RF or SLR camera: How do I want to see the subject when I'm working? In my mind, that's at the heart of why one might choose to work with an RF camera vs. an SLR. Of course some people have only worked with SLRs so it is hard for them to know what its like to use an RF. But Jeff certainly has ample experience with both so he's made an informed choice *for himself*.

 

It makes sense that Jeff titled that post "Rangefinder Photography" rather than "Leica M9".

 

The current excitement over the M9 is likely going to bring in at least some buyers who have not used RF cameras before. But their decision to stay with the system or not, long term, will ultimately be influenced - I believe - by how they like RF photography. Some will like it so well they'll wonder why it took them so long to try this "old fashioned" camera type.

 

 

Cheers,

[noah_addis]

Well said Sean. I think Jeff's post was right on the mark. The fact that he, as a photographer, prefers SLR shooting is both a matter of personal preference and of little consequence to the rest of us.

 

Like Sean, I also prefer the rangefinder viewing/focusing method. But its not for everyone, just as SLRs don't suit everyone. In a way I wish I did prefer SLRs, since there are many more options offered at more reasonable prices.

 

If you read the post, Jeff's point wasn't about the G11 specifically, he just mentioned the possibility of cameras with similar technological advances competing with rangefinders in the future. And he's right on with that. A more apt comparison might have been with the olympus PEN, which at least signals that camera makers are finally realizing the desire for small but high-quality cameras. I've never used one and I've heard mixed reviews, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

 

...

The current excitement over the M9 is likely going to bring in at least some buyers who have not used RF cameras before. But their decision to stay with the system or not, long term, will ultimately be influenced - I believe - by how they like RF photography. Some will like it so well they'll wonder why it took them so long to try this "old fashioned" camera type.

Cheers,

 

And others will hate it, meaning in a year or two we'll see a whole new round of mint-condition cameras and lenses on the used market...which is good for us!

[sean_reid]

And others will hate it, meaning in a year or two we'll see a whole new round of mint-condition cameras and lenses on the used market...which is good for us!

 

That's true too. <G>

 

Thank goodness at least one manufacturer (and only one right now) offers a DRF. I waited for years for such a camera before the Epson was introduced. I remember posting in a DPReview discussion back in maybe 1999 or 2000 that my ideal digital camera might be a digital version of the M6/M7.

 

Those of us who really prefer RF cameras are in a minority but I do believe that more photographers will find that the camera type suits them *if* they get some time to try one out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

... Of course some people have only worked with SLRs so it is hard for them to know what its like to use an RF. ...

The current excitement over the M9 is likely going to bring in at least some buyers who have not used RF cameras before. But their decision to stay with the system or not, long term, will ultimately be influenced - I believe - by how they like RF photography.

 

So true. On the one hand the so-called zen of RF photography is all a contrivance. RFs were around when SLRs were few and far between, did not have instant-return mirrors, and the viewfinders were dark and grainy. The SLR of today (indeed, of the last 40-some years) is none of that. RF developed into a cult/fanclub niche, with some pretty laughable mysticism bandied around. As a result of drinking that Koolaid, you get a certain number of guys who buy Leicas and then get soured quickly. Framelines that are only fairly accurate at one distance, framelines for longer lenses that are very small and hard to compose with, needing to focus in the center and recompose, limited focal length range and no zooms, and DOF left to experience and imagination were always things that sent some of them running back to SLRs. Today the SLR-Leica convert finds himself also giving up autofocus and matrix metering. The good thing (for me anyways) is that there's going to be a supply of nearly-new M9s in the coming year.

[AlanJW]

Just to elaborate on my original point re the Ascough comment on Canon G11, I have a G10 now, which I thought mught be nice for the times when I either needed AF or was lazy and wanted a zoom. The G10 produces very good snapshots, but I too had times when I took it and then wished I'd had the M8. Not a scientific comparison, of course, but then Mr. Ascough did not perform a scientific study either.

 

Per Sean's comments, I prefer to look through a rangefinder precisely because it is more work -- I need to think more about what I want to capture and how it is going to look when it is captured. I suppose one can say that a SLR also does not present subjects realistically, as viewing through a lens wide open is not accurate unless you're shooting wide open (yes there is DOF preview, but its not so useful when you're trying to work fast). So in one sense the RF presents too much DOF, and sometimes "too little" image and the SLR presents too much DOF, requiring some thinking in each case. But the shooting/thinking process is different, and I like the RF process better than the SLR process while Ascough doesn't. None of this deals with the way that Leica lenses draw on Leica sensors, which is an entirely different subject for personal decision. Suffice to say that I think all that thinking work is worth it on that score, while when he is not doing weddings, Ascough would simply prefer a P&S.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

I have yet to come up with a clearer way to describe the differences between the two camera types than what I wrote when I reviewed the R-D1 back in 2006. My apologies in advance to people who have already read this:

 

"There are photographers who prefer rangefinders and others who prefer SLRs. Needless to say, there are pros and cons to each system. Rangefinder cameras are usually smaller, lighter and quieter than SLRs. Since they don’t use reflex mirrors, they tend to have less vibration than SLRs during exposures and this can be an asset when working hand-held at slow shutter speeds. Their lenses tend to be compact. The core advantage of a rangefinder, for me, however, lies in the way in which it allows one to see and frame the picture before it’s captured. A rangefinder shows one the world through a window with lines indicating the picture’s borders. That allows one to look at what will and will not fall within those borders. In other words, one sees the world of the picture about to be made as well as the world just outside it. This can give one a greater sense of the ways in which the picture might change by either 1) changing the framing or 2) allowing elements outside the frame to move into the frame...

 

Then there’s the issue of viewing depth of field. An SLR normally uses an automatic aperture that remains open during composition and only closes to its set aperture at the moment of exposure. So, let’s say the camera has a 50mm F/1.8 lens mounted and set to an aperture of F/8. The exposure will be made at F/8 of course but the viewing used to compose and choose the moment of the picture will be seen through the lens wide open. That means that one will only see a certain range of distance in the frame (usually the foreground subject) clearly, everything behind and ahead of that focus zone will be blurred. So while the film or sensor will “see” at F/8 when the exposure is made, the photographer sees at F/1.8. It’s hard for one to make a picture he or she can’t fully see. One can get around this using a depth of field preview button but that method tends to work better when the camera is on a tripod. When working handheld, using a DOF preview button can be cumbersome and makes for a dark finder where things are harder to see. The rangefinder has the opposite problem of showing all distances from the lens in focus. One process is additive and one is subtractive. With the SLR, one must see certain distances out of focus and imagine what they will look like in focus. With a rangefinder, one sees all distances in focus and must imagine what some of them will look like out of focus..."

 

When Tod Papageorge wrote his "second opinion" piece for my M9 review, he put things this way:

 

"Directness is always a virtue in art. And what could be more direct in relation to the practice of the art of photography than the Leica's viewing system, where the photographer simply looks through a window and is able to see things, people, dogs, cats and the various rest moving into and beyond the framelines of the lens? (Re the [D]SLR: a black void around the frame, absorbing an extended view; a flipped mirror blocking the view at the moment of exposure.; and, in the view itself, an often misleading, shallow plane of focus determined by a wide-open lens.) And then there's focus: in the Leica, controlled by an operator able to quickly bring the bright lines of a split image into alignment. (Re the [D]SLR: at the mercy of an automatic system and its occasionally quirky attractions to one arbitrary point or another.) And the shutter: in the Leica (particularly the M9, even more than the M8.2, it seems), a soft tick. [Re the (D)SLR: a jarring sound effect.]"

 

Naturally there's no right or wrong when it comes to all this and there's no "one best viewing system". The viewing system does make a difference, however, for many of us - a huge one for me - and I think serious photographers owe it to themselves to try both kinds of cameras to see what works best for them as individuals. What I value in RF cameras has nothing to do with mystique and everything to do with what they offer me *right now* - in the present.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[mat_mcdermott]

...

Naturally there's no right or wrong when it comes to all this and there's no "one best viewing system". The viewing system does make a difference, however, for many of us - a huge one for me - and I think serious photographers owe it to themselves to try both kinds of cameras to see what works best for them as individuals. What I value in RF cameras has nothing to do with mystique and everything to do with what they offer me *right now* - in the present.

 

Agree entirely, it's primarily the viewing and focusing experience that has kept me in the Leica fold. Like Noah said above I sometimes wish I preferred SLRs as I would have more options at a lower price, but c'est la vie. And I do think there's a sort of Zen quality that I get using a rangefinder that, at least for me personally, I don't experience with an SLR. Call it mystique or practical difference, it's the same thing behind the description.