Do you want image stabilisation in camera?

[sc_rufctr]

One thing to consider...

If I.S. interferes with the shutter release in any way then it's better left off the M.

The one thing I have always loved about Leica cameras is the shutter release.
It fires when you want it to. Not a moment after the camera has finished making it's calculations or adjustments.

 

[Richard Marks]

One thing to consider...

If I.S. interferes with the shutter release in any way then it's better left off the M.

The one thing I have always loved about Leica cameras is the shutter release.
It fires when you want it to. Not a moment after the camera has finished making it's calculations or adjustments.

There is shutter lag with the digital M
If you add TTL flash it becomes truly awful actually.
Richard

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

When it comes to metering, I really suspect that "can't" is the right word. My understanding of SLR meters is that the cells are in the diverted light path, and as there is no diverted light path in an RF camera, there is nowhere to put the cells. The only possibilities in an RF are therefore reading the light reflected from the shutter (the universal approach today) or the lollipop-on-a-stick of the M5, which is about as 'spot' as an SLR 'spot'.

Power consumption is almost certainly a matter of time when it comes to battery capacity, but heat dissipation from powerful processors is a non-trivial matter and likely to remain so for quite a while, I suspect.

The smaller DSLRs are not, as far as I am aware, 24x36mm and I fear that the bulk of the components will render it difficult to the point of impossible to incorporate moving-sensor IS in an M9-size body for a very long time, possibly forever. For processor-based IS, we're back to heat and battery life.

Point fully taken about seals being more against dust, etc., than rainstorms (as with 'waterproof' watches) but I've hardly 'babied' my M8, which I've had since shortly after it came out, and it's not been a problem. The Great Internet Whinge, often from people with no experience whatsoever of whatever they are talking about, magnifies all problems beyond belief. This is not to say that problems never exist, but if Leicas were as bad as some on the internet say, they'd never sell more than one camera per person.

Finally, I don't think anyone ever said a digital RF was impossible for all time, just that it was a damn' sight more difficult than most people seemed to think, especially the ones who didn't understand lens-to-sensor requirements. Leica themselves said they'd do a 24x36 sensor eventually, but that they didn't know when.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger
You are of course usually irritatingly correct. However I never implied it has to be TTL. Mamiya 7 has a brilliant spot meter. It is like having a Sekonic permanantly stuck to the body. There is also the rangefinder light path which is unused. What I am really saying is I just think a little creativity could bring about something new and innovative. A Digital sensor in a 1950's body just seems such a compromise largely due to sentimental reasons. The M lenses and the rangefinder principle are what make it uniquely an M camera as opposed to something else. I think the rest could be modernised and also less expensive with a considerable new market of people who might never have even heard of HCB but take cracking pictures.

Fair enough the smaller DSLR's are not full frame. But they do have plenty of electronic skullduggery in them!

Im sure Leica said digital RF was not possible at some stage? Might well be wrong. Not getting any younger!

Best wishes

Richard

 

[Richard Marks]

Image stabilization yes, together with a sensor capable of up-to-date ISO 6400, a new body design –more ergonomic, that is– and way faster image processing capabilities.

Agreed
We are told all of this is not possible, but if there is a demand it may well become possible.

Incidentally i dont think the Contax G was all that far off in some ways although by current standards its focusing is a bit dated.

Richard

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Richard,

I strongly suspect - though I don't know - that while a non-TTL spot would be entirely feasible, and arguably strongly desirable, we're back to the old problem of added bulk. If there's no room even for a PC synch socket, I do not hold out a great deal of hope for a separate meter cell inside the RF housing. The same goes for the point (not yours) about focus confirmation, and as I say, I really suspect that matric metering would be impossible, as non-TTL matrix metering would be worthless.

As for the suggestion -- again not yours -- that the M could be made 'more ergonomic', I cannot imagine how. Those who want to destroy the compact elegance of the camera, and what I regard as flawless ergonomics, are at liberty to bolt on grips, smother the camera in cases, etc.

Cheers,

R.

 

[parsec1]

Dear Richard,

I strongly suspect - though I don't know - that while a non-TTL spot would be entirely feasible, and arguably strongly desirable, we're back to the old problem of added bulk. If there's no room even for a PC synch socket, I do not hold out a great deal of hope for a separate meter cell inside the RF housing. The same goes for the point (not yours) about focus confirmation, and as I say, I really suspect that matric metering would be impossible, as non-TTL matrix metering would be worthless.

As for the suggestion -- again not yours -- that the M could be made 'more ergonomic', I cannot imagine how. Those who want to destroy the compact elegance of the camera, and what I regard as flawless ergonomics, are at liberty to bolt on grips, smother the camera in cases, etc.

Cheers,

R.

Iceberg ? what Iceberg ? anyway this ship is 'unsinkable'.

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

I strongly suspect - though I don't know - that while a non-TTL spot would be entirely feasible, and arguably strongly desirable, we're back to the old problem of added bulk. If there's no room even for a PC synch socket, I do not hold out a great deal of hope for a separate meter cell inside the RF housing. The same goes for the point (not yours) about focus confirmation, and as I say, I really suspect that matric metering would be impossible, as non-TTL matrix metering would be worthless.

As for the suggestion -- again not yours -- that the M could be made 'more ergonomic', I cannot imagine how. Those who want to destroy the compact elegance of the camera, and what I regard as flawless ergonomics, are at liberty to bolt on grips, smother the camera in cases, etc.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger
"If every reasonable objection must first be removed then nothing will ever be achieved" (Livingstone).

It might not be possible for Leica to do this with their limited funds but if you throw enough R and D at the problem I am sure it is highly achievable. Hasselblad could not have developed the H system without Fuji. And certainly could not have ever modified the v system enough. I think Leica simply has to look at some collaborative help sooner or later.

The shortage of space is because they are saddled with the classic M idiom. Just for example the base plate design on a digital M is crazy. It might have been good for film but there is actually quite a bit of space wasted configuring things like that. And why did they do this? So its like a film camera of course. We have to get away from this to make something seriously competative in a digital age.

Regards

Richard

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Richard,

Quite honestly, I don't care what else they do as long as (a) it doesn't bugger up the M and (b) it doesn't bankrupt them. But:

Adding ANYTHING without adding bulk is difficult. There's not much room inside an M. Making it bigger means it is no longer an M (and even the M8/M9 are a bit chubby). Why introduce a second, parallel, bigger body, when your only competitor is yourself? You've already said you don't want them to stop making M-series cameras. IF they can stuff extra features into an M9-size body without affecting reliability or battery life, and without the price going up too much, great. Big IF.

You believe is is possible to do WHAT by 'throwing enough R&D at the problem'? Which problems had you in mind? In particular, non-TTL matrix metering is effectively meaningless, as a moment's thought reveals.

How does a removable baseplate waste space compared with some other form of trapdoor? Or worse, multiple trapdoors?

Rather than seeing them as 'saddled with' the M, I (and many others) find it hard to imagine how the ergonomics could be improved. Finger-grips? Yuk. Moulded plastic bodies? What have you in mind?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

Quite honestly, I don't care what else they do as long as (a) it doesn't bugger up the M and (b) it doesn't bankrupt them. But:

Adding ANYTHING without adding bulk is difficult. There's not much room inside an M. Making it bigger means it is no longer an M (and even the M8/M9 are a bit chubby). Why introduce a second, parallel, bigger body, when your only competitor is yourself? You've already said you don't want them to stop making M-series cameras. IF they can stuff extra features into an M9-size body without affecting reliability or battery life, and without the price going up too much, great. Big IF.

You believe is is possible to do WHAT by 'throwing enough R&D at the problem'? Which problems had you in mind? In particular, non-TTL matrix metering is effectively meaningless, as a moment's thought reveals.

How does a removable baseplate waste space compared with some other form of trapdoor? Or worse, multiple trapdoors?

Rather than seeing them as 'saddled with' the M, I (and many others) find it hard to imagine how the ergonomics could be improved. Finger-grips? Yuk. Moulded plastic bodies? What have you in mind?

Cheers,

R.

hi Roger
Agreed on bankrupcy. Lets hope the S system doesnt do that!
"Making it bigger means its no longer an M" I cant agree with as the M9 is bigger than the M6 classic and thats slightly bigger than an M3. You cant say a bit bigger is OK but then no more! Thats plain illogical.The features unique to an M are the rangefinder and m series lens mount as far as any patents go. Size and body design is not absolute.

I think "enough R and D" would solve some of the space issues. Leica are not exactly renound for their electronic innovations and I would be reasonably confident that there are electronics giants who could make better smaller and faster processors. (We have a digital camera that you can swallow that is used in gastro enterology!)

Regarding only competing with oneself i dont agree. There is a professional market who use DSLR's who may well buy a contemporary product with all the modern refinements but who otherwise are not interested in a 1950's retro design product.

There is space under the baseplate which is not utilised. Its not loads but it is wasted. The whole base plate thing is plain daft on a digital camera without a film spool. It has no purpose other than for nostalgia.

I do not expect to convince you otherwise but my experience is a little imagination can go a long way.

In my own specialty I have just presented at an international conference on cardiac anaesthesia showing recovery from heart surgery 5 to 30 minutes post procedure. (Publications in press British Journal of Anaesthesia). Only a few years ago this took 24 ro 36 hours. Vision can lead to extra ordianry things.


have a great weekend

Richard

 

[sig]

IS or no IS does not matter. i will never be able to afford it anyway

 

[tlitody]

Richard

Have you visited your own website link recently?

 

[Richard Marks]

Ah yes, Morgan🙂 But all umbrellas over here are made in China I fear 🙁

Go to Spink & Son in Bloomsbury🙂
Richard

 

[sig]

Why introduce a second, parallel, bigger body, when your only competitor is yourself?

If that would make you sell more cameras and make more money, why not?

 

[Roger Hicks]

hi Roger
Agreed on bankrupcy. Lets hope the S system doesnt do that!
"Making it bigger means its no longer an M" I cant agree with as the M9 is bigger than the M6 classic and thats slightly bigger than an M3. You cant say a bit bigger is OK but then no more! Thats plain illogical.The features unique to an M are the rangefinder and m series lens mount as far as any patents go. Size and body design is not absolute.

Dear Richard,

This is of course a slippery slope argument. The M6 is (to me) imperceptibly bigger than earlier Leicas: I can see the difference, but not feel it. I can feel the difference in the M8/M9. I've got used to it, but I still like 'real' Leicas more.

Given the choice of a bigger camera with more features, and the current body size with the features it has, the current body size wins easily. I don't want ANY addition that make the M8/M9 even chubbier. Compare a Nikon F with an F2 or even F3, then with the later tub-o'-lard models and the slipperiness of the slope is all too easy to see. For that matter, Leica users decisively rejected the M5, and gladly accepted a return to non-metered cameras, because the M5 was so damn big, ugly, heavy and awkward (cue hate mail from M5 lovers).

Some new features are all but inevitable with improving technology, and can be achieved without extra size: longer battery life, faster processing, better high ISO performance, possibly more megapixels.

The assumption that you are not competing with yourself (mainly Sig's point, not yours) involves the premise that the RF market is bigger than just about anyone outside RFF thinks it is. Any all-new Leica RF ain't gonna be cheaper that an M9, especially given all the features that you and others want to build in to it. What's the market for a £6000/$10,000 competitor to the M9?

Finally, I suspect that there's rather less of a downside to faster recovery from cardiac surgery than there is to packing more features into a Leica. Fascinating figures, though. A good week-end to you too: for me, today, RFF is light relief from sorting several hundred pics that Frances and I shot at Arles and preparing this year's report for the website. Which I shall continue doing across the week-end.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sig]

I have no idea on how big the market is, but why would Leica introduce M9 at all if the thinking is that the only competitor is Leica?

 

[rxmd]

I have no idea on how big the market is, but why would Leica introduce M9 at all if the thinking is that the only competitor is Leica?

Well, because people have been clamoring for full frame, so they had good reason to assume there was a market. And they were right, seeing that they can barely keep up with demand for a $7000 boutique camera.

 

[sig]

Well, because people have been clamoring for full frame, so they had good reason to assume there was a market. And they were right, seeing that they can barely keep up with demand for a $7000 boutique camera.

That is my point, if Leica makes a even better M9 camera it is possible that they will sell even more.

If leicas only competitor was Leica there would be no need for new versions of the M camera.

 

[rxmd]

If leicas only competitor was Leica there would be no need for new versions of the M camera.

Well in a way Leica's only competitor is Leica. The reason why the film M line has basically stagnated is that there is no competition in the high-budget rangefinder market. The Hexar is gone. There are Bessas and ZIs, but those compete mainly with used M2s and M4s and M6s. The ZI may be seen as competing with the M7, but that's only in the sense that a Škoda competes with a Bristol - as a camera the ZI does everything as good or better, but as a boutique product the Leica is the only option. Anyway, even if they compete, there's apparently not enough money to be made here to justify further film M development; the recent persistent rumours that Leica has stopped film M production altogether say enough.

In the digital arena things are different. Leica has no direct competitor at all, but the userbase has been spoiled, in a way, by DSLRs, so Leica has had to keep up with those indirect competitors. So far they've been doing that pixel-count-wise and sensor-size-wise (but they've only had two models so far anyway). It will be interesting to see if they choose the safe-but-stagnating way and just continue jacking up the pixel count and dynamic range and leave everything as it is to avoid offending anyone in their customer base, or if they try to live up to their reputation of being a company of engineers catering to photographers, displaying a bit more engineer's creativity in what they give customers.

Then again, maybe they'll do both: sell M9s to be a minimally-different digital equivalent to the MP, and sell a wildly different M10, say, a full-frame electronic-viewfinder compact.

 

[Roger Hicks]

'Stagnation' is one interpretation. Another is that they've got the design pretty much right; that it's what their customers actually want (the people who BUY the cameras, and NEW ones at that); and that while they'll listen to anyone, they don't pay any more attention than is reasonable to amateur camera designers/redesigners. Morgan cars (http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/) could be seen as 'stagnating', too, but I'd buy one like a shot if I could afford it.

By definition, a niche product doesn't cater to everyone. So? Those who DO like the niche product sometimes get understandably annoyed with people who believe that they know better than the manufacturer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Marks]

Well in a way Leica's only competitor is Leica. The reason why the film M line has basically stagnated is that there is no competition in the high-budget rangefinder market. The Hexar is gone. There are Bessas and ZIs, but those compete mainly with used M2s and M4s and M6s. The ZI may be seen as competing with the M7, but that's only in the sense that a Škoda competes with a Bristol - as a camera the ZI does everything as good or better, but as a boutique product the Leica is the only option. Anyway, even if they compete, there's apparently not enough money to be made here to justify further film M development; the recent persistent rumours that Leica has stopped film M production altogether say enough.

In the digital arena things are different. Leica has no direct competitor at all, but the userbase has been spoiled, in a way, by DSLRs, so Leica has had to keep up with those indirect competitors. So far they've been doing that pixel-count-wise and sensor-size-wise (but they've only had two models so far anyway). It will be interesting to see if they choose the safe-but-stagnating way and just continue jacking up the pixel count and dynamic range and leave everything as it is to avoid offending anyone in their customer base, or if they try to live up to their reputation of being a company of engineers catering to photographers, displaying a bit more engineer's creativity in what they give customers.

Then again, maybe they'll do both: sell M9s to be a minimally-different digital equivalent to the MP, and sell a wildly different M10, say, a full-frame electronic-viewfinder compact.

Regarding the film M's id say more fully evolved than stagnated. Also I can see that Leica are very unlikely to invest further in making new film cameras. The Nikon F6 is unusual as being a 'new' SLR when the digital era was already established. Apparently they still have good F6 sales which is surprising given the large nuber of F5's and f100's around.

Regarding digital competition, I would not compartmentalise things into types of camera so much as the boundries are becoming less clear with various sizes of sensor and resolution. It was easy with 35mm, medium and large film formats. I would say that a digital rangefinder can actually compete well against a current DSLR but for significant numbers of professionals to look at it seriously as an alternative it must be tank like build quality, weather sealed, fast processor speed, contemporary high ISO, good TTL flash and a high resolution playback monitor, totally reliable and have readilly available back up and servicing options. Inevitably it will be compared with the DSLR alternative. Obviously the classical rangefinder advantage used to be low light but image stabilsing and high ISO performance have let the DSLR's into this field. Obviously the DSLR is less discrete, but given the amount of cameras, phones and videos around I think people are less conscious of photographers. Additionally if I have a pro quality DSLR I find I may often be taken more seriously at official events than with my M8. So the discretion value of rangefinders is not as important to me as it once was. What is unique about the M series is the shear optical quality of its lenses. There are times when they produce pure magic. This is the appeal and quite honestly I am open to suggestions for any digital platform that can use m series lenses at their propper focal length. yes there are times when i love simplicity and pure mechanical cameras and i still love film, but once it goes digital then im 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and want as sophisticated a piece of technology as I can get.

Best wishes

Richard