Reichmann Alert

[Bill Pierce]

That excellent site, The Luminous Landscape

http://luminous-landscape.com/

recently posted the following announcement.

“I have also been thinking a lot about the rangefinder camera's relevance in today's environment. Later this week I will publish an Open Letter to Leica, with my thoughts on the future of the M Series camera. Watch for it.”

Michael Reichmann is an intelligent, experienced photographer. He does a great deal of landscape and nature photography where the M’s lack of anti aliasing is an advantage and its comparatively poor performance at high ISO’s is less important. The current digital Leicas are certainly more useful to him than those of us who are often “available darkness” photographers. In many ways I think he is the photographer the M9 was created for. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

[Bill Pierce]

Reichmann's article is now available on his website. It is must reading for any photographer currently using a digital rangefinder. Sometimes I think the web is a huge and capacious wasteland where photo writers dump their superficial, shallow trash. Then an article like this appears, and I am so happy to be wrong.

[visiondr]

Bill, thanks for posting this.
His arguments make a lot of sense to me from a practical standpoint. Not being a digital M owner, I have to admit I'm not "in the know" about the niceties (nor the "not niceties") about the M8 or M9. Still, I have to wonder if making all these changes to a future digital M would eliminate the beautiful simplicity of the M-series camera that many users, including myself, find so endearing or even - dare I say it - essential.

[Pickett Wilson]

I dunno. It sound to me like the guy is trying to play both sides of the fence. He acknowledges an absolute truth: that the M body is an obsolete design, using an obsolete focusing system. But then he tries to cobble together an unlikely amalgam of ideas to try to keep it somewhat like a M body.

What the M needs is a complete redesign, along with its lenses, to become a modern, AF camera. But, then, nobody would buy it. Because that's not what M buyers want. They want the M mystique, they want a camera that looks and feels like an M3, that focuses like an M3, but has the digital capabilities of a 1DsMk IV.

If they change the camera at all from that formula, I don't think they would be able to sell it.

[visiondr]

I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't entirely ring true to me. Cue the old story about the "rejection" of the M5. M users, while somewhat nostalgic, are also fanatical about "feel". If the camera feels right; solid, dependable, small, precise (in a word: Teutonic) they'll line up to buy it.

[mabelsound]

I think a super-high-quality OLED EVF with "peaking" style focus confirmation is a superb idea. i think Leica's next M-mount camera should be a digital CL with EVF--it could be a trial balloon to see how M enthusiasts respond. Then, if it works well, this technology could be incorporated, in its newest incarnation, into the next M.

[Pickett Wilson]

Ron, to significantly change the M camera would remove current M's, including the M9, to the camera ghetto. It would be an acknowledgement by Leica that the cameras people buy "to use forever and pass on to their children" are obsolete curiosities. And remove all doubt that the $7,000 M9 they bought was in reality a disposable camera in Leica's eyes. A disaster for Leica, no doubt. The box they live in.

[Jim-st]

It is indeed a thought-provoking article - thanks fo rthe heads-up, Bill, and hopefully MR's contribution will help move things along hereabouts. Too much for me to take in or respond to with due consideration tonight, but I'll be spending some time tomorrow pondering it - comes in the week when I'm just about to take the plunge and grab an M8. And me a mostly Scottish Highland Landscapes guy...

[Fujitsu]

Reichmann's article is now available on his website. It is must reading for any photographer currently using a digital rangefinder. Sometimes I think the web is a huge and capacious wasteland where photo writers dump their superficial, shallow trash. Then an article like this appears, and I am so happy to be wrong.

In short: Leica missed the chance to introduce the X1 with an M-mount. Maybe the M10 can be built much cheaper than the M9 because the optical finder will be replaced by a digital.

[Keith]

I personally don't think the camera needs much changing of the ergonomics but live view would be a bonus IMO. It would be nice to know exactly what is hitting the sensor instead of the approximation the rangefinder gives on the odd occasion!

For the more considered shots when using a tripod ... or where composition is important without the need for cropping in post is high on my list!

[redpony]

I fail to see what is so interesting about Reichmann's "open letter." It strikes me as fatuous, at best. For example:

"I am arguing that the current M9, and any other camera built further on the viewfinder / rangefinder paradigm, has become an evolutionary dead-end."

(Uhmm, this is the rangefinder forum, right?)

Anyway, why stop there? If we are making profound statements about historical imperatives, why not conclude that all 2D imaging has reached an evolutionary dead-end? Witness the rise of video in dslrs and 3D in movie theaters. Heck, maybe all of our techno-fetishism has itself reached an evolutionary dead-end, as it is surely non-sustainable, both economically and environmentally.

This reductio ad absurdum is only half in jest, but surely no less valid by the very logic, which is admittedly scant, on which Reichmann's argument hangs. As we await extinctions massive or otherwise, the M9 is selling very well. As most commentators seem to think the camera a success, it may be some time before we see an M10. Perhaps by then video will have become firmly entrenched amongst mainstream consumers, or, maybe, Reichmann will be vindicated and hell will have frozen over.

[Pickett Wilson]

I think his meaning in "evolutionary dead end" is to question what else Leica could do to the existing platform to produce the next M digital? Add more pixels? Higher ISO? If you've got to keep the same shape and size, the same mechanical RF and use the same lenses, why would anyone shell out $10,000 for the M10?

It's the same problem they have with the M7. Where else do you go with the existing design?

[Keith]

The MP, popular as it is, was a step back into the past ... Leica can't survive on the appeal of the nostalga factor forever surely.

[antiquark]

Reichmann talks about Leica attracting new customers... I have an idea, give the M10 autofocus! Isn't that obvious?

(You know, it can be done... the Contax AX could autofocus manual lenses.)

The MP, popular as it is, was a step back into the past ... Leica can't survive on the appeal of the nostalga factor forever surely.

I wonder what will happen when HCB recedes from memory, and photographers of today become icons at some time in the future. For example, will people buy Nikon FM2's so they can emulate the Steve McCurry of the 1980's?

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've heard that argument before, but it doesn't entirely ring true to me. Cue the old story about the "rejection" of the M5. M users, while somewhat nostalgic, are also fanatical about "feel". If the camera feels right; solid, dependable, small, precise (in a word: Teutonic) they'll line up to buy it.

Where do these people come from? :confused: :bang:

[Frank Petronio]

I usually don't agree w MR but I think he nailed it. Leica has an opportunity right now to lead the high end photo market. The camera concepts he is talking about sounds great to me, if I could ever afford one.

Of course Panasonic can read that article just as easily as we can. And that's a great roadmap for a camera just a year or two away....

Leica would make a gazillion if they partnered with Panasonic and the leaders had the wisdom to use the best talents from each company. They could keep the M9 series as their premium luxury amateur line... and so a hybrid per MR.

[Trius]

Reichman's propositions are based on (mostly) economics, not on quality of the output, which he states is already extremely high. They are two separate arguments, but he gets it all mixed up, getting into technology. His letter could be shortened by a factor of 90% or so if he would just say "Make a 'full frame' digital camera that takes LTM & M mount lenses with a larger high res, live view EVF and a thumb grip, because as the longtime M film users die off, no one else will buy a digital Leica based on the M3."

I'm not sure I agree with his premise, since one of the key differentiators of the Leica (and its "clones") is the immediacy of the rangefinder view. The other factors (size, weight, quiet operation) are important, but the raison-d'etre of the Leica (beyond the optics) is the viewfinder.

[semilog]

I have a much more serious gripe with Reichmann: he goes out into the world with the best gear available, and consistently returns with astonishingly dull photographs. Their formal qualities are uninteresting, their subjects are mundane, their treatments are bland.

And none of those in a good way, either.

[Keith]

because as the longtime M film users die off, no one else will buy a digital Leica based on the M3."


My understanding is that they (the M3 Zealots) are now a protected species and are actually being bred in captivity in secret labs somewhere in Germany!

[Pickett Wilson]

Then, Trius, the M9 is Leica's last camera. What significant improvement could they make to the M9 to justify producing a mechanical rangefinder M10?

[DRabbit]

I could shorten his article by 99%. What he is suggesting is a full-frame EVIL/mirror-less camera.

Excuse me for being blunt, but I happen to think his article is trash. The M8 was my first rangefinder and I don't think I'm all that unique. I don't think the world of rangefinders dies off along with it's "old" users.

Leica's biggest problem in becoming more "main stream" has always been price... but it's obvious they like it that way. I hope the crowd of rangefinder users always remains large enough for Leica to stay afloat, but if they go making essentially the m4/3 camera for $6000 I'm not interested when, by then, the competition will be way ahead and selling the same thing for a fraction of the price.

What I'm willing to pay top-dollar for from Leica is the rangefinder experience.... the whole thing. The body's design, the way it feels in my hands, and the way it handles from aperture ring to rangefinder focus mechanism. I don't want just any camera I can mount an M lens to (have the E-P1 already) to replace my M.

[MaxElmar]

Still waiting for an EVF even remotely up to the task. Major gripe - time lag - then resolution.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Ah, another Leica-related thread, again derailed by the bashers.

I wonder what the bookies in Vegas give for odds on that not happening.

[maddoc]

CMOS sensor is the next logical step for me, with better performance at high ISO ranges compared to CCD. A FF CMOS sensor based RF camera would be a similar step in technology as the 21mm and 24mm Summilux lenses.


Then, Trius, the M9 is Leica's last camera. What significant improvement could they make to the M9 to justify producing a mechanical rangefinder M10?

[BearCatCow]

Actually I really liked his article. His idea of a new focusing mechanism sounds very interesting. I am not sure if the computing processing power is there yet but the idea of automatically indicating the area of greatest contrast/focus while you manually focus the lens sounds very useful.

One of my favorite things about RF is the improved certainty of where you are focused. His idea would enhance this ability while preserving the compactness of the lens. In addition this lets us do away with the RF parts - patch, prism, windows, etc, and allow for bodies to be even more compact.

Of course like others said, this technology can be implemented for DSLRs or GF1 type cameras as well. But that's not a problem. Technology to improve the manual focus of other cameras sounds good to me.

[aizan]

sounds an awful lot like what i expect the r-system solution will be. he even talks about shielding the lcd with a rolleiflex-style folding hood and displaying hyperfocal focusing info on the screen. dude's stealing my ideas! :D

it's obvious he prefers a groundglass over direct viewfinders. i think all he really wants is compactness and optical quality, not the unique viewing system that makes rangefinders so good at what they do.

[buzzardkid]

...I think Leica's next M-mount camera should be a digital CL with EVF--it could be a trial balloon to see how M enthusiasts respond. Then, if it works well, this technology could be incorporated, in its newest incarnation, into the next M.


When the rumour of an M9 was catching on, I thought I could see the contours of a digital CL in the Leica promo video. Turned out I was dead wrong, but I still think that they should create exactly the kind of digital CL you are suggesting, John!

[Ronald_H]

This thread is predictable, the article... thought provoking.

If people want a modernized Leica, a ' full frame GF1' that's fine. If people want a classic rangefinder, that's fine too. The question is, will Leica cater to both markets? Are they even capable of doing that? And if they are, what would the 'new style Leica' cost?

It would be great if a new style Leica would be made, but Leica's have ceased to be cameras long ago. They are mythical revered objects where rationalization does not apply. And you're gonna pay for that mystique. I'm looking to Nikon instead for a mirrorless, RF-less professional camera.

[jsrockit]

The M8 was my first rangefinder and I don't think I'm all that unique. I don't think the world of rangefinders dies off along with it's "old" users.

I agree... the death of the rangefinder has been talked about for 50 years. Yet, there are more rangefinders available new today than 20 years ago.

[jsrockit]

Leica AG abandoned the M8 buyers in an instant, and the $7000 camera is the new flagship digital M body. The film cameras are equally outrageously priced. I don't know about the rest of you, but to me a $7000 camera is an insane amount of money for the full frame digital privilege. The ardent photographer with a middle class budget is better off waiting for the other manufacturers to deliver them to digital nirvana.

I've always been a used Leica buyer anyway... I just wait a few years until prices become barable. The first leica I am buying brand new is the X1. I've bought the M4-2, M2, M6, and M8 used.

[victoriapio]

I can see both sides of this issue and agree with MR on two issues: first, there are lots of tweaks that will improve the M8/M9/MX just as there were for the succession of film Ms. Second, now MAY BE a good time for Leica to R&D to ultimate digital RF (and I won't begin to speculate on all this entails) if the end result is a less expensive system. If the ultimate digital Rf continues skyrocket in price, I fear the market will be too small for profitabilty.

A few suggestions on improvements of any future digital Ms:
1) from someone whose M8 shutter just blew up (probably less than 25,000 or so clicks), digital reliabilty needs to be another top priority for Leica and better pricing and "followup" when major issues like failing shutters arise.
2. I do not use a thumbs up, but obviously a better grip design is needed.
3. The removeable bottom plate must GO. Thank you Luigi for your interesting bottom plate product - it may not be perfect but I can now change batteries and cards without taking the bottom plate off!
4. Larger focus patch on the rangefinder. Very few photos have the main focus point in the center of the image. A larger - or perhaps differently shaped - focus patch would be a nice improvement, allowing for easier composition and lessening the time to "focus then compose" when both could be done simulaneously.
5. Obviously faster recording times and preview times would be nice.

[Traut]

I think most of what he is espousing is found in the Gf-1. The technical arguments about sensor size not withstanding. The evolution of this type of camera is assured and at a quick pace no less. A better EVF (it's not bad now) provision for accessory VFs and improvement in sensor whcih is ensured will make what he wants a reality. I have an M8 and the GF1/EP1/G1. I like the Leica for its form factor but am not blinded by it.

[biggambi]

This is certainly not his finest example of authorship. I happen to read his web articles and I enjoy them. But, as others have pointed out, he is not describing a camera that would remain a digital M. I do think Leica has a potential market in another product that utilizes their M lenses. I think they should exploit it, by creating two legitimate high end bodies. If they work with another company to develop the product. There could be the release of another option at a lower price point. Also, by having electronic systems take over for mechanical systems production costs can be cut. Therefore, Leica potentially would benefit with the diversification of its market.

As for what is the use of further models being developed within the M family: Integrating refinements and further advancements in the electronics. One of the benefits in these advancements would be returning to the width of the M6/7. Also, I do not see how it can be said that the interest in the M will not continue. Certainly there are people on this very forum that have come to know Leica for the first time through the M8 & M8.2. Leica and so many other companies do not seem to be so concerned with conquering the world through large production volume.

There does seem to be a shift as to who the M serves best. It may very well be that it no longer serves the photojournalist as it did at one time. I don't know, as I am not a photojournalist. But, Leica has never been a high production company, and it has always been an expensive option among the worlds offerings. My kit has always been a combination of used and new. I am not wealthy, but it was and is a system that speaks to me. My take on Reichmann's article is that he is looking to push the envelope. He has a true love for the Leica M, and he would like to see it better fit his needs. This is never a bad thing. It is always worth examining. It just might not be an M.

[visiondr]

Ron, to significantly change the M camera would remove current M's, including the M9, to the camera ghetto. It would be an acknowledgement by Leica that the cameras people buy "to use forever and pass on to their children" are obsolete curiosities. And remove all doubt that the $7,000 M9 they bought was in reality a disposable camera in Leica's eyes. A disaster for Leica, no doubt. The box they live in.

You are spot on in your analysis. In a world of rapid technological progress, tech devices are, essentially, disposable.

[victoriapio]

[quote=biggambi;1241315...I do think Leica has a potential market in another product that utilizes their M lenses. I think they should exploit it, by creating two legitimate high end bodies. If they work with another company to develop the product. There could be the release of another option at a lower price point. Also, by having electronic systems take over for mechanical systems production costs can be cut. Therefore, Leica potentially would benefit with the diversification of its market.... (SNIP) [/quote]

IMO, this is the kind of thinking Leica needs right now. (Obviously they are doing this with Panasonic already in entry level models.) Keep refining/improving the digital Ms, explore other avenues to bring the "now" generation into drfs at a less expensive price point.

[nemjo]

I agree... the death of the rangefinder has been talked about for 50 years. Yet, there are more rangefinders available new today than 20 years ago.

I'm affraid you forgot the FSU cameras...
But even without them, I'm not sure that it was true...
(I am speaking about the numbers.)

According to MR's proposal: the number of existing M (and LTM) lenses makes sense of such a "full frame GF1.


nemjo

[kzphoto]

Still waiting for an EVF even remotely up to the task. Major gripe - time lag - then resolution.

I'm in this boat here. If you can give me something as bright as the finder on my M6TTL, without lag, then I'm game.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I must be going insane, because I thought the M8, M8.2 and M9 had something as bright as the finder on the M6, and had absolutely no lag.

[Gabriel M.A.]

This thread is predictable, the article... thought provoking.

If people want a modernized Leica, a ' full frame GF1' that's fine.

Let me try some of this:

If people want a modernized Harley Davidson, a "four-wheel drive Toyota", that's fine.

[Trius]

Then, Trius, the M9 is Leica's last camera. What significant improvement could they make to the M9 to justify producing a mechanical rangefinder M10?
Oh, you've received a letter from Leica saying it's their last camera? Are you including the S2/successors?

[Pickett Wilson]

Ummm, I thought we were talking about M's, not S's.

[biggambi]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist? Is it not suited to any of your work or is it just not suited to a particular area? If it is low light performance, can you please give a little detail: Is it too risky regarding shot potential, given other cameras available to you? Is it that images have to much noise to be printed in copy or gallery prints? Is film quality pictures just not good enough for todays market? You get the general idea of where I'm going with my questions. I hope you can shed some light on this topic. As I think it is such a rich part of Leica's history, and I would like to gain an honest perspective on it.

Kindest Regards,

[Trius]

Ummm, I thought we were talking about M's, not S's.
We were, but you claimed the M9 was Leica's last camera.

So, to answer the question I think you were asking ....


New/better sensor
Quieter operation
Improved control ergonomics
Improved menu structure
Faster write speed
I dunno ... there's always ways to improve, eh?

[antiquark]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist?

I'm not Bill or a photojournalist, but I thought PJ's preferred the modern utility features like zoom lenses, autofocus, lots of frames per second, etc.

[gb hill]

Let me try some of this:

If people want a modernized Harley Davidson, a "four-wheel drive Toyota", that's fine.

Harleys are being made in China now like the 2009 Touring Glide. All their clothing is made in China. Harley is just a name!

As for the M10 It will most likeky be a X1 with a ff sensor & interchangable lenses +EVF. Cost will be 1/3 of what a new Harley cost.

[jpberger]

If you take away the live view and EVIL stuff The camera brief in Riechmann's letter sounds an awful lot like a manual focus contax g. Just saying...

[Keith]

Harleys made in China ... that's a laugh!

Harley adopted a world market strategy years ago and that was what kept their arses out of the fire. They use manufacturers in all parts of the world but the bike is as American as apple pie as far as I'm concerned ... they even have castings done here in Oz! :p

[VinceC]

I'll wade in cautiously and just note that the Nikon RF/Contax RF mount would lend itself perfectly to autofocus. It already has the mechanism because of the thumbwheel.

[rxmd]

I'll wade in cautiously and just note that the Nikon RF/Contax RF mount would lend itself perfectly to autofocus. It already has the mechanism because of the thumbwheel.

No it wouldn't. A built-in motor to rotate the whole camera mount with lens attached would be slow, heavy, loud, and awkward. Not to mention what happens when you attach a big external-mount tele lens. There's a reason why they recommend the thumbweel only with internal-mount lenses.

[Pickett Wilson]

There's a reason autofocus lenses have a lot of plastic in them. It would take a Briggs and Stratton motor to focus old RF lenses. :)

[Arjay]

Upon first reading pass, MR's article sounds reasonable, but a second reading makes me suspect he's suggesting a camera that will not offer the main Leica M USPs any more:

Very short shutter lag
Very bright, responsive viewfinder
Viewfinder doesn't black out during exposure
Shooting the camera while bracing it against one's face for better stability/less vibrations and/or
Shooting "from the hip" using zone focusingAd 1: All EVF cameras I know need to switch from video / live view mode to high-res capture before actually performing the exposure. In other words, the imaging sensor has to reconfigure itself for another operating mode, and that takes lots of time, as can be seen on practically any current digital point&shoot camera. This shutter lag has electronic causes and appears to be very difficult to get rid of. To qualify as a "Leica" I would expect the lag to be substantially shorter than that of any state-of-the-art DSLR, wich currently is in the range of some 30 milliseconds.

Ad 2: EVFs have a viewing lag, just like any video camera, and the lag is probably in the five to ten millisecond range. That is, the EVF actually displays something that is in the past! I cannot see how this could be useful for candid photography.

Ad 3: Having used numerous digital P&S cameras as well as DSLRs, I know that both camera types share a very annoying feature: The viewfinder/Monitor/EVF blacks out during exposure (see para 1.). That's tolerable in DSLRs, but a PITA in P&S/EVF cameras, because they are even slower than reflex cameras. The very fact that an optical rangefinder doesn't black out during exposure is IMHO the most powerful USP that actually constitutes the Leica product identity.

Ad 4: If I have to watch a monitor on the camera's back, then I can't brace my camera to my body, and I will probably lose 1 to 2 EVs of shutter speed for low-light photography. An EVF might be able to cure this, but then, it would need to offer very high resolution, which again would slow down the entire camera electronics because of the high volume of data that need to be processed and transmitted.

Ad 5: I do not clearly understand MRs vision of DOF support in an EVF. Yes, you can highlight in-focus areas electronically, but owning a camera w/ live view myself, I don't particularly like this operating mode because it impairs vision. And then, how should camera electronics be capable of locating other image areas that might be within the DOF range? To do that, you'd need a lot of processing power, because that would require specifying an acceptable CoC for DOF (for a decision of what's "in focus" and what isn't), and in digital times, there's no more a set rule for this parameter. Also, this In/out of focus decision takes a lot of processing power.

Clearly, I hope Leitz doesn't take MRs opinion as the only one that would drive a decision to design the next generation Leica. They might lose their precious, and almost mythical product identity.

[Pickett Wilson]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

Now, the lack of some kind of optical finder that I can put my eye right up to does bother me. But it seems most people aren't as concerned with that as I would have thought.

[Bike Tourist]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

Now, the lack of some kind of optical finder that I can put my eye right up to does bother me. But it seems most people aren't as concerned with that as I would have thought.

As to finder blackout, I offer some of the old Pentacons, Exactas, etc, wherein the blackout continued until you advanced the film. Now that was blackout!

I also shoot with both types (as soon as my R2 arrives today) and agree they both have their advantages.

As to an optical finder, I am one of those extremely bothered by the lack of one. Technology has made strides in EVFs but as yet they just don't get the job done for me.

The article itself was well-considered, well thought out and backed by the author's years of experience. I hardly agree with anything he said. Even the point about hip shooting. What was that all about? People have produced compelling photography shooting at eye level, over their head, from the hip and, I suppose, upside down between their legs. Techniques vary. Results count.

[biggambi]

Arjay: well spoken points. It would appear that MR is looking to the camera from a nature photography stand point. At least the photos he uses would support this assumption. I understand how this live view with focus would be of interest in macro photography and the in the use of wide angle lenses in the field. Just to put some perspective on intend use.

While this feature could be added, it would require a transition to a CMOS sensor. The aspect of a CMOS that I do like is the fact that the electronics are on the sensor. Thus allowing for a more compact & simplified design. Also, a CMOS sensor would increase the high ISO performance. But, CCD sensors have other benefits, and I personally prefer them over CMOS sensors in this application. CCD sensors were built specifically for this purpose, and their unique qualities have yet to be eclipsed by CMOS sensors. One can google CCD vs CMOS to find many layman articles on the subject, if desired.

I agree with you, I hope Leica does not look to change the M in this manner. But, as my previous post states. I do think they have a great opportunity to develop a co-existing product.

[antiquark]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing.

If you're taking pictures of people in low light (1/30 or 1/15 shutter speed) you always wonder if they blinked when the shutter was open. The LCD basically solves that problem now, but in the film days you never knew. (If you were using an SLR.)

[Gabriel M.A.]

Harleys are being made in China now like the 2009 Touring Glide. All their clothing is made in China. Harley is just a name!

Really? C'est la fin du monde! :bang:

If only they could imitate quality and equality, I'd be more than pleased :D

[Roger Hicks]

There's a reason autofocus lenses have a lot of plastic in them. It would take a Briggs and Stratton motor to focus old RF lenses. :)

Still smaller, lighter and faster than a Harley-Davidson! Probably better handling too.

Ceers,

R.

[Bill Pierce]

Bill,
If I may ask a question of you. What is the one biggest contention you have with the M9 as a photojournalist? Is it not suited to any of your work or is it just not suited to a particular area? If it is low light performance, can you please give a little detail: Is it too risky regarding shot potential, given other cameras available to you? Is it that images have to much noise to be printed in copy or gallery prints? Is film quality pictures just not good enough for todays market? You get the general idea of where I'm going with my questions. I hope you can shed some light on this topic. As I think it is such a rich part of Leica's history, and I would like to gain an honest perspective on it.

Kindest Regards,

Although the SLR is probably the most versatile camera, the film rangefinder still had it’s place where a quieter, smaller, less noticeable camera wasn’t a constant reminder to the subject that they were being photographed. In certain situations you could use it in a way that the subject wasn’t even aware that they were being photographed. (Street photography would be an example.)

The bright line finder also had advantages in journalism. You were aware of what was just outside the frame and objects nearer and farther than the focus point could be seen sharply - all pretty important when you are photographing the uncontrollable and experiencing the unexpected.

Today, there are cameras that are smaller and quieter and cheaper. And image quality from these cameras continues to get better. So much so that even with relatively large prints, many viewers can’t see the difference between prints from the small and large sensor cameras. In good light, they have replaced the digital Leica with most of the photographers that I know.

In available darkness, where a film Leica loaded with Kodak P3200 was king, there is no digital camera, including the digital Leica, that delivers like the DSLR.

Essentially, what I see among my friends is DSLR’s and digital compacts like the Canon G10, Canon S90 and Panasonic GF1. Leica still makes inroads. A lot of folks are using Leica bright line accessory finders on those cameras. I even have an adapter that lets me screw an accessory shoe into the tripod socket of the S90, a camera that doesn’t have a built-in shoe.

[Bill Pierce]

Here is a slightly different viewpoint from Michael Reichmann's on future "rangefinder" cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-different-view.shtml

[KM-25]

I've never understood the "finder doesn't black out at the moment of exposure" thing. So I realize at the moment of exposure, because the finder doesn't black out, that I've missed the decisive moment. Unless I'm shooting landscapes, the moment I was trying to capture is already gone forever. I shoot both rangefinders and slrs, and have never felt one had an advantage over the other in that regard.

I feel differently about this. As a SLR user for 34 years, I could not believe how good it felt to have my life back when looking through the VF of a Leica. I too, could see the moment that others without cameras were seeing. It was very liberating and I think it actually helps in my concentration in making images. When ever I go back to my SLR or DSLR's after shooting nothing but R/F for awhile, the mirror black out feels very jarring to me. In the R/F, I see blinks, the moment the flash fired, it is almost like "Live Chimping".

I find an enormous difference in the R/F versus SLR experience.

[Trius]

Here is a slightly different viewpoint from Michael Reichmann's on future "rangefinder" cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/leica-different-view.shtml

"so the traditional 35 mm camera shape is obsolete and ergonomically wrong."

Well, wrong is a pretty strong term unless qualified by "for me". I happen to think the shape of a classic mechanical RF or (smaller) SLR is about perfect. Since I tend not to chimp, "cheek prints" are of no matter to me. LCD screens are for checking things. If it's a live view system, then the damn thing isn't on your cheek anyway.

I agree about DOF scales on lenses. Just because this feature refers back to an "antiquated" method of focusing doesn't mean it's useless. When I started shooting an SLR, the DOF marks actually piqued my interest, i.e., "What is this for?" and opened my mind to an aspect of image control I might not have noticed, or at least not until much later.

[biggambi]

I have no experience with the zoom viewer he describes. Can anyone speak to it's usefulness and quality? He assumes this is easy to change. Does anyone know anything about the mechanics of the two systems? Are his assertions correct? If they are correct, it does sound like a nice viewer.

As for ergonomics, there will always be those who will never want the camera to change. But, he is not alone in feeling that the camera could benefit from a stronger grip factor. I do not think this would be much of a change. As for the general form changes he is referring to, I would have to see it to know. But, I personally do like the classic lines. I just think that a simple brass, half domed ball (maybe more elliptical and elongated), that is checked, for your thumb to make contact with, would do wonders. This would be very simple to machine and set in place.

Lastly, I could not agree more with the DOF scales on the lenses.

[marke]

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

I feel differently about this. As a SLR user for 34 years, I could not believe how good it felt to have my life back when looking through the VF of a Leica. I too, could see the moment that others without cameras were seeing. It was very liberating and I think it actually helps in my concentration in making images. When ever I go back to my SLR or DSLR's after shooting nothing but R/F for awhile, the mirror black out feels very jarring to me. In the R/F, I see blinks, the moment the flash fired, it is almost like "Live Chimping".

I find an enormous difference in the R/F versus SLR experience.

[Pickett Wilson]

That's two for changing the shape of the M camera. Apostasy! ;)

[Harry Lime]

"In many ways I think he is the photographer the M9 was created for. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say."

I'm sorry, but have to disagree with that assessment. Actually I would say quite the opposite is true.

Reichmann is technically very knowledgeable, but he shoots like a tourist. Landscapes that look like calendar shots, found shapes and colors and when he does shoot people, well, he shoots them like a tourist. I see nothing of the raw and spontaneous reportage photography that Leica shooters have been known for over past few decades in his work.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, because he does seem like a nice person, but Reichmann shoots like a hobbyist and his laundry list sounds like that of someone, who is a little too enamored by technology. I hear echos of the dpreview crowd in this article, where too much emphasis is placed on features instead of skill, practice and the content of the image.

Yes, he's right that the camera needs a better sensor and there is nothing wrong with live-view and perhaps a better metering system. But what he is describing is no longer a Leica M series camera.

But maybe that's the future of Leica photography, since the company decided that their target market are well to do hobbyists. The ugly truth is that the vast majority of talented artists or photographers are broke and can't afford an M9.

It think the perfect camera for Reichmann would be a a full frame GF-1 and I don't mean that in a condescending manner. It would be compact and packed with modern features, while still offering the flexibility of a lens mount.

I think Leica has two holes in their product line.

First and foremost they need a digital CL with a good APS-C or APS-H sensor, that is priced considerably lower than the M9. They have also mention a solution for the orphaned R-glass, that will not be a DSLR. In that case how about a full frame GF-1 type camera?

Leave the M series alone. It is what it is and trying to make it something it isn't, is going to ruin it.

[sojournerphoto]

Mmmmmm

Live view would be nice for tripod use. More pixels, probably. You'll get them whether or not you need them. Better low light performance (lower noise) likely for some people. All are OK and just steps on the digital train. But I don't want an EVF camera - I've not bought an Oly or a Pana because I don't like the viewfinder. My evf camera is a P&S otehrwise slr or rf.

Mike

[Renzsu]

The M series of cameras is one of the VERY few cameras that people feel passionate about.. not just the way it handles and the results it gives, but the camera itself as well.
In my opinion there's enough room for Leica in their current product portfolio to explore different cameras that might perhaps cater more towards what people like Reichmann want, but I think it would be a big mistake to make those radical changes in the M series. Maybe an MX that has the same mount, but with those extras.
Somehow I do hope though that the people of Leica are a bit more out of the box thinking than this and not trusting on existing solutions to do the job when perhaps there are even better an more innovative ways to do even more. The camera market is still stuck in this sequence of slow evolutionary design. Leica hopefully is able to look beyond this.

[rbrooks]

I think Leica has two holes in their product line.

First and foremost they need a digital CL with a good APS-C or APS-H sensor, that is priced considerably lower than the M9. They have also mention a solution for the orphaned R-glass, that will not be a DSLR. In that case how about a full frame GF-1 type camera?

I think the Leica guy (Stefan?) mentioned on the one video that they don't feel a need for a low priced M/CL since the used market is filling that niche. I see his point.
And R is as R does. Some people care alot and then there are many others who really don't care. The longer there is no new R body the more the problem solves itself actuarially.

From what I understand about the M9 I think they're getting really close to something good. Sure I can think of a few things to complain about but in general it has hit the spot.

Also Reichman is as Reichman does. Leica cannot even meet current demand so it doesn't matter too much to add features. The public is happy as is.

[KM-25]

Reichmann is technically very knowledgeable, but he shoots like a tourist. Landscapes that look like calendar shots, found shapes and colors and when he does shoot people, well, he shoots them like a tourist. I see nothing of the raw and spontaneous reportage photography that Leica shooters have been known for over past few decades in his work.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, because he does seem like a nice person, but Reichmann shoots like a hobbyist and his laundry list sounds like that of someone, who is a little too enamored by technology. I hear echos of the dpreview crowd in this article, where too much emphasis is placed on features instead of skill, practice and the content of the image.

But people don't want to hear this, I know, I have the welts and scars to prove it. Before the internet, we had a couple of people who did magazine gear reviews, like the late Herbert Keppler.

But now we have a whole new flock of what I call the "Internet-Gear-Review-Hero" who's work is never anything beyond average and yet people just oooze and gush over what they write like it came from Moses.
I mean just look...really look at how many forum posts that are titled "My M8.2 review" or "M9 does the Outback". Who freaking cares what you used, it is any good, what you shot?

Sadly, often not....

[Harry Lime]

I think the Leica guy (Stefan?) mentioned on the one video that they don't feel a need for a low priced M/CL since the used market is filling that niche. I see his point.

Stefan's response was more along the lines of:

"If you can't afford an M9, drop dead."

[Harry Lime]

Who freaking cares what you used, it is any good, what you shot?

Amen, brother.


Here's the problem and it doesn't necessarily only pertain to Reichmann, whom I really don't mean to single out, because frankly he's often one of the more reasonable ones out there.

All of these reviewers will discover some new toy a few months down the road and the M9 will no longer be the apple of their eye. The obituary posted on their blog proclaiming the passing of the prodigal son will detail some fatal technological deficiency that is rectified by a newer model and some advice to the creator of the deceased.

The only problem is that Leica may actually take some of this advice to heart and wreck the camera for the rest of us.

Fortunately, Solms moves at a glacial speed, is as stubborn as a mountain goat and suffers from a virulent case of 'not-invented-here' syndrome.

So, the odds of anything actually changing are pretty slim.

[Trius]

The ugly truth is that the vast majority of talented artists or photographers are broke and can't afford an M9.
...

Leave the M series alone. It is what it is and trying to make it
something it isn't, is going to ruin it.

Exactly ....

[biggambi]

I started my journey into photography with a Nikon FM2. I chose it because I wanted to learn every element of taking the picture. It was latter that I moved on to a Leica M6ttl. I chose this because I wanted a more intimate relationship with my subject. I like being called upon to make each decision with regard to the picture, and I like the tactile aspect of the camera. I like how there is less between me and my subject, as the system requires me to fully understand the moment. The viewer does not push my vision through the lenses perspective, but rather allows it to remain natural. Keeping me connected to my subject, while my mind takes care of what the final image will be. I see the M8 & M9 as being logical extensions of a system that allows a very unique way of taking photographs. I see it as progression, with out the loss of the human aspect of taking photographs. It is of course easy to let machines do more and more work for us. But, it is not very rewarding to me. The digital M is exactly what it needs to be, no more and no less. Leica embraces the technology that allows it to remain true to its design, not morph into something that betrays it.