Lloyd wrote a letter to Leica AG...

[Sparrow]

Me too. But, the democratic* rules of the Intertoobes have decided this is not the case.



* as redefined by the Intertoobes

Ah ... that must be it, sorry

 

[sper]

I always thought it was the photographers job to get the best out of his equipment, rather than the equipment's job to be perfect for every bozo to use ... perhaps I'm wrong

You're not wrong, you're right. But that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made, right? I mean when the M8 required IR filters for every lens was that a case of people not getting the best out of their equipment?

I don't think asking for more battery life, a higher resolution screen, and added help with focusing is completely unreasonable. Don't you want the M series to be the best it can be? Nowhere in the post did he mention adding autofocus or video or anything like that. The M can remain an M, even if it has live view.

I mean an M10 with just focus confirmation and live view would mean that you could accruately focus and compose in all siutations, you wouldn't have to lose your RF patch, and you could use macro and tele lenses. Why do these kinds of suggestions create such a stir?

 

[Sparrow]

You're not wrong, you're right. But that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made, right? I mean when the M8 required IR filters for every lens was that a case of people not getting the best out of their equipment?

I don't think asking for more battery life, a higher resolution screen, and added help with focusing is completely unreasonable. Don't you want the M series to be the best it can be? Nowhere in the post did he mention adding autofocus or video or anything like that. The M can remain an M, even if it has live view.

I mean an M10 with just focus confirmation and live view would mean that you could accruately focus and compose in all siutations, you wouldn't have to lose your RF patch, and you could use macro and tele lenses. Why do these kinds of suggestions create such a stir?

... well yes; they did improve the m3 a few years later ... so we had a choice, then we can choose? would you say? it seems bizarre to me to buy a VW and then go around complain that it isn't a Porsche, no?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I mean an M10 with just focus confirmation and live view would mean that you could accruately focus and compose in all siutations, you wouldn't have to lose your RF patch, and you could use macro and tele lenses. Why do these kinds of suggestions create such a stir?

Because a Swiss Army knife (and replica) already exists, and asking for a cheese knife to be as versatile as a Swiss Army knife without being a Swiss Army knife is...well...not a cheese knife anymore.

If you don't like the cheese knife, do not buy the cheese knife. Get a Swiss Army knife. If you do find a knife manufacturer who likes the idea, then that's great. In the meantime, being shocked at the seeming "stubbornness" of the cheese knife maker at trying to be as faithful as it can be to its cheese knife design (while being accused of only catering to the cheese-eating market and not to the BBQ steak market) is an exercise in frustration.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

... well yes; they did improve the m3 a few years later ... so we had a choice, then we can choose? would you say? it seems bizarre to me to buy a VW and then go around complain that it isn't a Porsche, no?

I'm sure the Porsche 914 failed spectacularly on both those fronts. 😉

 

[Sparrow]

I'm sure the Porsche 914 failed spectacularly on both those fronts. 😉

... bit like the M5 then?

 

[semilog]

I agree with Bill Pierce and to a great extent with Lloyd Chambers.

Leica lenses are among the very best available, and many of them are optimized for wide apertures. At wide apertures critical focus is difficult to achieve and if a lens has focus shift it's even more difficult.

There's no good reason why the M10 should have the RF as the sole or exclusive means of checking focus. Live view and/or modern focus confirmation would be enormously useful additions to the exiting underpowered RF. There's a reason I shoot a calibrated M6 0.85, and there's a reason I generally prefer shooting relatively slower lenses with it.

Lloyd is also correct about frameline accuracy. There are definitely times when live view would be preferred, again, in addition to the viewfinder — especially when working in situations where parallax is an issue.

Add to that limited dynamic range and (relatively) poor low-ISO capability of the M8/9, and you're probably looking at CMOS sensors.

Really, I'm appalled at what a poster upthread accurately described as the reactionary response to Chambers's post. This post at The Online Photographer (linked in another comment above) encapsulates much of that response, and does it perfectly:

I do remember one of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic.

For instance, if you'll remember, Mike wrote a review of the Leica M8 (in separate "Pro" and "Con" sections) that now looks quite sane and balanced. But it wasn't at the time, because, when he wrote it, the M8 was still a current product. Big mistake...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

... bit like the M5 then?

The M5 should serve as a lesson. I like the M5, but I wouldn't own one because it doesn't fit me. Excellent exposure control, but there are some (functional) design issues with it that concern me.

They should have added that camera as a separate line, not as a replacement.

They also had a nice camera in the Leicaflex but then went with the R3 as a replacement and that was just not good for many. Leica isn't as big as Canon or Nikon...people keep really beating the "but if X did it, why can't Leica do it?" drum without really understanding what they're saying.

Imagine Porsche getting into the Hybrid market by replacing their current high-speed models instead of complementing their line (with current technology as is now commercially available). Folly. Induced by people who don't understand the brand.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Gotta say, bobYIL, you threw a hand grenade into the fishpond when you posted this....

I'll just say that it does say something about the basis soundness of the M's design that Leica has been able to upgrade it and keep it going for almost 60 years....long after most of its contemporaries ceased to be anything other than museum pieces.

I think the M is both a blessing and a curse for Leica. It's a very sound and capable design for what it does. But I think Leica is also kind of chained to the M. It's what people think of when they think Leica, and Leica has certainly invested heavily in that image in its advertising. So for Leica to top making a "true" would be a business disaster for them, I think. So I guess they're stuck with it, like it or not.....

My take would be that Leica continue to produce some incarnation of a "true" M for those (like me) who want the "M experience," for lack of a better term. But as has been suggested above, Leica might want to put out other lines of cameras for those who can't afford the M, or who are like Lloyd and want something more, um, "progressive" in a camera. I suppose this is what Leica is trying to do with cameras like the D-LUX and the X-1 (And , yeah, teaming up with a Japanese or Chinese camera maker--like Zeiss did with Cosina--may not be a bad idea).

But there are always going to be geezers like me who'll want our minimalist Ms rather than the latest auto-everything Japanese WunderKamera....

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A Leica M9 is about as expensive as a Nikon D3 using the comparison between an M6 and an F3HP. The M6 was ~$2500 when the F3HP was about $1200. Leica offered a $500 trade-in against the $2,500 price, bringing it to $2000. I bought a pair of F3HP's at the end of their production, at the SN 2M mark. One is still in the box, the 1983 F3AF is still going for the working pair that i use. The latter was not cheap when introduced. (M6 and F3 Prices from 1991 Pop Photo Ads)

Current prices of DSLR's:

http://www.penncamera.com/Digital-SLR-Professional-Prodlist.html

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

For fear of having people (who don't read) misrepresent my stance: I'm not "pissed". I'm dismayed at the misconceptions and then the defense of misconceptions as "fact".

To me it's not a "you're with us or you're against us":

I do remember one of the cardinal rules, which is that you're not allowed to criticize current Leica products. Only once they've been replaced can you talk frankly about the flaws of the earlier versions. Until it is replaced by Leica, every current Leica product is by definition unimproveable. That's a fact of life—a Universal Truth. Axiomatic.

For instance, if you'll remember, Mike wrote a review of the Leica M8 (in separate "Pro" and "Con" sections) that now looks quite sane and balanced. But it wasn't at the time, because, when he wrote it, the M8 was still a current product. Big mistake...

Many statements of "truth" based on fallacies or misconceptions. It's either you agree or you are wrong (and by stating anything else is "combative").

Why must one be so frustrated that one thing isn't what you want it to be when it's been like that for decades?

Nothing is perfect; some people like some of the things that are imperfect because it fits them. If it doesn't fit you, why must this be such a huge deal?!

 

[Paul Luscher]

Remember that old saw about "If you want to stay out of trouble, never discuss religion or politics"? Looks like it needs to be amended to "...Never discuss religion, politics,.....or Leicas...."

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

No, it's not the discussion of "Leicas". It's the vitriol it draws, and then when that vitriol is challenged then it's mistaken for "religiousness".

I saw that flowering with the X100. Since the Leica vitriol seems to be mostly concentrated to "Leica", it was certainly tame, in comparison.

 

[semilog]

Why must one be so frustrated that one thing isn't what you want it to be when it's been like that for decades?

Some people (especially those of us trained in science and engineering) believe in progress.

In at least some ways, Leica seems to agree: the Leica ASPH lenses have not "been like that" for decades. They now offer across-the-line performance, especially at wide aperture, that (with a few exceptions) simply was not available twenty years ago.

Hence, it seems worthwhile to offer camera bodies that, to a reasonable extent, can keep up with that progress when used in a critical manner. With some changes that would have little impact on its M-like character, the M9 might be made much, much better for critical use (that is, getting the subject in critical focus). Else, why bother with $4,000 lenses?

It's pretty obvious, if you read carefully, that critical users from Ken Rockwell to Dante Stella to Erwin Puts agree with this assessment (and yes, Rockwell is a critical user, if you read his lens reviews closely).

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A better rangefinder for the M9?

That's easy. Just transplant the finder from the M3 into it.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Yes, gabriel M.A. the Cult of Leica demands stern adherence....heresy and apostasy will not be tolerated...🙂

Well, semilog, I'm not sure anyone's arguing against progress. ( I for one, think that LED framelines , like the one in that $22K M9 Titanium, wouldn't be a bad idea) But ,given that the M is what it is, I think there's a concern that some may get carried away, and if all their suggestions were followed , we'd have a "not-M."

I mean, can you agree that sometimes progress for progress' sake is not always a great idea? That sometimes a good thing ought to be left well enough alone? And that saying so does not make you a Luddite?

Frankly, I think what needs to be noted is that Leica took a HUGE step forward in converting the M to a digital camera in the first place--quite a feat , in my humble and non-technical opinion--and for making it full-frame, given the apparent technical challenges involved. So really, in some way, I think Leica needs to be congratulated for this feat (although it was obviously an issue of survival for he company), rather than kvetching, like Lloyd does, because the camera doesn't have this, that, or the other, and is therefore not the Perfect Camera.

I will now put on the flame-proof suit, just in case...🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I've used a DL-1 with my Nikon Ftn and F2. I converted it to use an LED when the lamp died. Nikon illuminators go back to the Nikon SP. It would be easy to make an add on illuminator for the M line. Tom A....

 

[sper]

Praise Leica for pulling off the M9? Now that would be quite a concept, eh? I think it's easier to complain and generates far more web hits... 🙄

I would agree though; change merely for the sake of "progress" isn't necessarily always a good thing. Look what CV's been doing to their classic lenses. <ducks>

Though, in the "old days" of purely mechanical cameras, using natural light for the framelines made a lot of sense. Perhaps even up until the M8 and M9 with their bigger, rechargeable batteries. Now that battery life isn't such an issue (in the sense of replacing those little, expensive batteries) perhaps it is time to consider the LED approach. For one thing, it would provide stronger, more consistent lighting. But without ever having peeped through a Ti VF, I can't say if it's good or bad.

I think the record profits, dividend payments, constatnly sold out stock, and uber expensive special editions (that sell out) have counted as praise enough. People do praise Leica all the time, doesn't mean they can't ever say, hey, here's an improvment that could be made...

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, sper, nevertheless I think it was a great achievement of the part of Leica, and I think they should be given credit for that.

Sometimes I think we fail to be properly appreciative of the effort made to bring the M into the digital age, in the midst of all our declaiming on how the camera "lacks" and "needs to be improved." But then, as someone has noted, gratitude is an ephemeral quality.

Brian Sweeney, I have thought along those lines--something like Nikon had for the SP. Brought it up to the Leicagoodies guy and to Tom Abrahamsson some time back, but to date there has been nothing but a deafening silence....

 

[sper]

Here, we can all rest easy now. 😛