fiatlux
Established
And if Leica switched to EVF cameras, wouldn't it become irrelevant as a camera maker, as other manufacturers would no doubt come with cheaper ones?
I agree the RF accuracy is borderline with very fast or long lenses. But it remains the most accurate manual focusing technique for wide to nornal lenses. And the clear viewfinder is a pleasure to use, even if framelines are inaccurate.
I started with a NEX before getting an Leica M8 and haven't touched the NEX since. I will probably check it back once the new firwae is out, but it will likely go to the bay sooner or later..
Would I like a better sensor, a better screen or even LV for the critical shots on the M? Shure! Would I want the RF/VF swapped for an EVF? NO! Unless there is a quantum leap technology advancement that make new EVF totally transparent to the eye. A clear VF/RF is one of the "raison d'être" for the M, IMO.
None of those were my ideas... and I agree with you, the M's strong point is its simplicity and mechanical rangefinder.
paulcurtis
Member
Some more very good points. Brian talks about a seemingly impossible compatibility task and they did it which is commendable.
And others talk about the focusing of a rangefinder.
Perhaps i can be sold bold as to ask - what is it about the focusing? Is it a case of speed because of familiarity? I ask in the sense of real curiosity.
I find it quite odd going back to a dSLR after the NEX. As an experiment recently i left my Canon at home when we went away over easter. I didn't miss it at all and came home with some lovely photos. One of two that i would never have gotten before - this was all MF.
An M9 is a lot of money just for rangefinder focusing, which has a limited range anyway. Down to 0.7m at best. Aside from that focusing process and no AA filter and a quiet shutter, i don't see too many other real world benefits.
For me that MFD on rangefinder lenses has reared it's ugly head in the field many times. So much so that i'm adapting zuiko lenses on the nex now which even when combined with the adaptor are still very small.
Personally i think the reason that there are so many good Leica produced photographs is that the people that tend to own Leicas are just better photographers, you could give them any camera and they'd produce just as good work
DigiLloyd is probably generating plenty of traffic for his site and in fact i do belong. I find the reviews and writing interesting but not the final word at all. Just another opinion.
cheers
paul
And others talk about the focusing of a rangefinder.
Perhaps i can be sold bold as to ask - what is it about the focusing? Is it a case of speed because of familiarity? I ask in the sense of real curiosity.
I find it quite odd going back to a dSLR after the NEX. As an experiment recently i left my Canon at home when we went away over easter. I didn't miss it at all and came home with some lovely photos. One of two that i would never have gotten before - this was all MF.
An M9 is a lot of money just for rangefinder focusing, which has a limited range anyway. Down to 0.7m at best. Aside from that focusing process and no AA filter and a quiet shutter, i don't see too many other real world benefits.
For me that MFD on rangefinder lenses has reared it's ugly head in the field many times. So much so that i'm adapting zuiko lenses on the nex now which even when combined with the adaptor are still very small.
Personally i think the reason that there are so many good Leica produced photographs is that the people that tend to own Leicas are just better photographers, you could give them any camera and they'd produce just as good work
DigiLloyd is probably generating plenty of traffic for his site and in fact i do belong. I find the reviews and writing interesting but not the final word at all. Just another opinion.
cheers
paul
Keyne
Established
I use an M8 and the only thing I would want are:
- Lower cost (one can hope)
- ISO adjustment without using the screen (similar to RD1 or in some of the M9P photos I have seen with a big wheel on the back like a film camera) or at a minimum it would be nice to have an analog display or like the M8 top display have ISO value in there so you don't have to press a button and use the screen to see the setting
- sensor cleaning. Seems silly to me that this has not been included
That being said these are not big items at all (except for price) and I can certainly live with it the way it is with no problems. I love using the camera more than any I have ever used. Also, I would NOT want them to add an EVF, focus confirmation, video, live view, espresso machine or any other "stuff" to the camera. If I wanted all the electronic stuff I would still be using my MFT or bought a DSLR. IMO the simplicity and tactile ergonomics (manual aperture and shutter speed controls) are what make the camera so great to use.
- Lower cost (one can hope)
- ISO adjustment without using the screen (similar to RD1 or in some of the M9P photos I have seen with a big wheel on the back like a film camera) or at a minimum it would be nice to have an analog display or like the M8 top display have ISO value in there so you don't have to press a button and use the screen to see the setting
- sensor cleaning. Seems silly to me that this has not been included
That being said these are not big items at all (except for price) and I can certainly live with it the way it is with no problems. I love using the camera more than any I have ever used. Also, I would NOT want them to add an EVF, focus confirmation, video, live view, espresso machine or any other "stuff" to the camera. If I wanted all the electronic stuff I would still be using my MFT or bought a DSLR. IMO the simplicity and tactile ergonomics (manual aperture and shutter speed controls) are what make the camera so great to use.
furcafe
Mentor
It's easy, fast, & works in a wide range of light conditions, basically wherever your eye can see both images in the RF patch.
I personally find it difficult to manually focus quickly w/SLRs or any type of focusing based on direct viewing (e.g., ground glass or EVF) because there are so many gradations between "sharp" & "almost sharp." In contrast (no pun intended), RF focusing is binary--the focus point indicated by the patch is either in focus or not. In my experience, the only thing faster than an optical RF is modern autofocus.
I personally find it difficult to manually focus quickly w/SLRs or any type of focusing based on direct viewing (e.g., ground glass or EVF) because there are so many gradations between "sharp" & "almost sharp." In contrast (no pun intended), RF focusing is binary--the focus point indicated by the patch is either in focus or not. In my experience, the only thing faster than an optical RF is modern autofocus.
Last edited:
Very eloquently described... and exactly why I only use RF or AF cameras.
newsgrunt
Well-known
Hi iso handling and buffer size aside, I don't see how a discreet focus confirmation aid would be antithesis to Leica's design and heritage. It'd just be two or three led's not unlike the meter.
NickTrop
Mentor
You want a Leica? You pay Leica's price. This is not Leica bashing to say this but the only pragmatic reason for an M9 to me is you have a lot of money invested in Leica glass and you want a FF digital on which to slap them. Because of this, Leica can charge what they want and they do. Point being is - unlike the original M, there is nothing especially compelling about the camera itself in terms of capability, like high ISO performance.
KM-25
Well-known
Now you are kind of dreaming here, before I sold my 35 1.4 asph, I compared it to my Nikon 35 1.4G and could hardly tell the difference, the Nikon is incredible.
He is not dreaming, Leica has become a joke system for a talented pro to even consider. And yes, the X100 makes the price of an M9 and 35/2 asph roll on the floor laughable.....it is that good.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
I stopped reading at the first transitive use of grow.
I'm not exactly Leica's target buyer with its digital M cameras anyway, but I would never in a million years buy this guy's ideal Leica M10. It sounds to me like he's grumpy because he bought into the wrong system. Sell, and move on to Leaf or something, "Pinpoint Focus" Man.
I'm not exactly Leica's target buyer with its digital M cameras anyway, but I would never in a million years buy this guy's ideal Leica M10. It sounds to me like he's grumpy because he bought into the wrong system. Sell, and move on to Leaf or something, "Pinpoint Focus" Man.
Why do you think that?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Harley Davidson motorcycles are a joke for NASCAR drivers; all that money and you can't get more than two wheels, not to say that it's a death trap.
Shame on Harley Davidson for not making it able to race at racing car tracks! Those NASCAR cars can even be driven down the street while it rains! Can you do that with a Harley and not get wet?
What a joke.
In an LFI interview Mr. kaufman said at the time that they were going to build a full frame digital M on public request, and that it would not be better than the M8.
Obviously himself did not strongly believe that it could be better at the time they designed it.
My only diapointment regarding the M9 were the acrylic display and rather loud shutter, like the basic M8.
I think adopting the same features as the M8-2 would have been a minimum requirement.
However it looks like nobody on the market makes a better camera with the same functionalities at this time.
I still prefer to use a good ol film M, but that is a personal opinion also true for SLRs.
Obviously himself did not strongly believe that it could be better at the time they designed it.
My only diapointment regarding the M9 were the acrylic display and rather loud shutter, like the basic M8.
I think adopting the same features as the M8-2 would have been a minimum requirement.
However it looks like nobody on the market makes a better camera with the same functionalities at this time.
I still prefer to use a good ol film M, but that is a personal opinion also true for SLRs.
braver
Well-known
Come on, no need to be offensive, this actually a pretty interesting thread.
There are pro's using the m9, there are pro's using the rd1, there are pro's using compacts. Noone needs some guy on a forum to tell them what system to use.
I think even the x100 is a bit expensive for how good some cheaper DSLR's are, once you start comparing apples to oranges why not add bananas? To some it's all fruit anyway.
user237428934
User deletion pending
So what! We all don't know it exactly but I assume that Leica does well even without pros as customers. Olympus, Pentax (dslr+compact), Sigma, Casio, Ricoh, Fujifilm (compacts), Panasonic, Samsung, Sony they all don't have a pro customer base.
sper
-
<cough>Chris Weeks</cough>
<cough>Thorsten Overgaard</cough>
<cough>Pete Souza</cough>
I'm sorry, please excuse me. I though someone said that the M9 was a joke to pros.
On that logic the iPhone must be the most professional of all cameras, as I'm sure there are lots of "pros" that use them to take pictures.
sper
-
First of all Harley Davidsons are a joke to everyone. Seconly that's a bad analogy because Harley Davidson doesn't market themselves as a choice for race car drivers. Leica DOES market their cameras as a choice for pros. It's just sad that few pros can justify the working expensive of actually doing serious work with the M system. So what exactly are you talking about?
The S2 on the other hand I can see in a rental house or studio, in place of a Hasselblad or Phase One.
KM-25
Well-known
<cough>Chris Weeks</cough>
<cough>Thorsten Overgaard</cough>
<cough>Pete Souza</cough>
I'm sorry, please excuse me. I though someone said that the M9 was a joke to pros.
I know Pete personally, he tried the M9 for some of his White House but went back to his 5D-II for nearly all of it. Not sure who Thorsten is other than a guy I see posting on forum all about gear, Chris does use it, but then maybe paparrazzi work pays more than advertising and PJ...;-)
There are quite a few people who have loads of talent and who's style of shooting would benefit from an M9 but it is simply overpriced for many of us to build a real system with.
You have to get out and talk to people like we all did at Look3 this weekend, like famous Leica shooter Bill Allard using a GF-1 instead of an M9.
If Leica would have managed one more stop of noise reduction by going with a 12mp sensor instead of playing the megapixel game AND priced the M9 at around $5,000, that would have paid off huge, I might have got one.
I have two film M's I use for non-deadline PJ work and current book projects. I use great simple & small glass like the CV 28 3.5, 35/2 asph and a ZM 50/2 on my M3. What I want an M9 for, very discreet and quiet digital work with a semi-fast 35 often in light requiring ISO 3200, the X100 is doing a much better job. It is hitting the exposures, the color and especially the white balance out of the park so well that I really see no need for shooting raw with this camera.
Believe me, I wanted an M9 and thought back forth about what a great tool it would be for these types of shoots, but then the X100 came along and the resulting photographs fully extinguished that desire.
The photographs matter first and for most and a lot of the work I see coming from the M9 does not have any more impact than from people using a 5D, D700 or even an X100.
Several of the more iconic photographer in attendance this weekend commented on they thought it was ashame that instead of getting great R/F gear into the hands of the next wave of great PJ's by pricing it reasonably, Leica is going full steam ahead into the elitist non-photographer types hands by doing bling things like titanium versions and the new Hammertone version of the M9.
Until Leica does something about this, you are going to hear this from people and are going to have to read this along with all the praise out there.
braver
Well-known
No, you know very well a pro camera is only a pro camera if it's been decided to be one by the internet community. Only then is a pro allowed to use one, in fact only pro cameras are to be used in any picture making for it to be taken into consideration for being "serious photography". Mind though, that the internet community decides who is a pro in the first place. Until that time a person is designated pro, one has to use quotes around the word "pro".
sper
-
No.
A pro is someone who makes money on their photography doing commercial work. A pro camera is any camera capable or recommendable for professional work, on standards of build quality, image quality, and cost.
Leica fails two of these standards.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.