Open letter to Mr. Kobayashi

Keith said:
....I agree that a rangefinder is not a wide camera by it's essence but it certainly is one of it's major strengths!...
Click to expand...
I use both RFs and SLRs and i prefer the latters for wides personally. YMMV. Fact is that many photogs seem to prefer wides nowadays. For fear of showing (viewing?) things as they are perhaps, i don't know.
 
Jamie123 said:
I think if you look at an M9 and compare it to an entry-level DSLR like a Canon 550D there's not much of a size difference. The M9 is 585g while the Canon 550D is 530g. Sure, the M lenses are smaller than EF lenses but a fast M lens isn't exactly light. So I don't think the argument of having to get an M9 in order not to have to 'lug a DSLR around' has much validity. There's an comparable amount of lugging required with both systems. Also, the DSLR will most likely surpass the M9 in low light performance and focus accuracy. Low light? Stick a ST-E2 for IR focusing on there.

What I'm trying to say is that on a practical level there's little to no reason why one should use an M9 instead of a DSLR. Just like, on a practical level, there's no reason to go with a Rolex instead of a cheap quartz watch. Why do people buy Rolex watches? Well, because they just prefer it and think it looks nicer. (Let's disregard reasons like them being status symbols etc.)

Why do people use an M9? I suspect in the end it's simply a matter of habit and personal preference. There's nothing wrong with that but one has to realize that the market for such a camera is comparably small and limited. There may be a demand for digital rangefinders but I doubt that there's a growing demand. Anyone entering this market will be sharing it with Leica and the question really is whether or not it's even worth the effort. They might as well just stick to making lenses and leave the camera market to Leica.
Click to expand...

I'd both agree and disagree. Your final paragraph is absolutely unarguable on every point, but I completely disagree with your observations 'on a practical level' in the previous para. Comparing a cheap, built-to-a-price DSLR and a top-flight RF is not very realistic. Compare the M9 with a pro-level DSLR and the M9 is a LOT lighter. Also, without a mirror box, it's inevitably smaller even than cheap and nasty DSLRs, and the lenses are a fraction of the size. On top of that, the view through a Leica and through the railway-tunnel gloom of a cheap DSLR are even more different than the view through a Leica (superimposed frames) and a good SLR.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I'd both agree and disagree. Your final paragraph is absolutely unarguable on every point, but I completely disagree with your observations 'on a practical level' in the previous para. Comparing a cheap, built-to-a-price DSLR and a top-flight RF is not very realistic. Compare the M9 with a pro-level DSLR and the M9 is a LOT lighter. Also, without a mirror box, it's inevitably smaller even than cheap and nasty DSLRs, and the lenses are a fraction of the size. On top of that, the view through a Leica and through the railway-tunnel gloom of a cheap DSLR are even more different than the view through a Leica (superimposed frames) and a good SLR.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

True, my argument is a bit lacking in so far as I'm comparing a top RF with an entry level DSLR. But let's be honest about this, except for sensor and viewfinder size (granted, that's a big 'except') the functionality of a 550D is on par with that of an M9. Of course the materials and build of the M9 is superior by far but I suspect it's not as good as a top DSLR in regards to sturdiness and weathersealing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a 550D is just as good as an M9. It's definitely not. That's like saying a cheap plastic Swatch watch is as good as an IWC. In most regards it's not. But it tells the time equally well or even better. And that's what I'm saying in regards to cameras.
Anyone who wants something cheap and portable with a large sensor can get a cheap DSLR. There are some compromises and it's not as much of a pleasure to use as an M9 (I'm guessing here as I haven't used either cameras) but that's what you always get when you go cheap: a compromise.

The whole analogy between cameras and watches breaks down at a certain point because cameras are still tools while watches are pure luxury items (No one needs a watch to tell time. We all have mobile phones.) but I think it works up to a certain degree. An M9 is not a pure luxury item but, IMO, the main difference between a DSLR and an M) is luxury. The luxury of holding a beautiful, well crafted device, the luxury of looking through a bright viewfinder, the luxury of carrying a slightly more compact camera. Luxury always comes at a price, though.
 
Jamie123; camera. Luxury always comes at a price said:
Unless ofcourse 'they give you one on 'permanent loan' then you will become very protectve about your source and very enthusiastic about their product..good or average AKA M9
Click to expand...
 
Jamie123 said:
Of course the materials and build of the M9 is superior by far but I suspect it's not as good as a top DSLR in regards to sturdiness and weathersealing.
Click to expand...

I would rather drop a canon 550d than the M9. The canon would bounce whilst the M9 would crack and shatter.

The only thing that the M9 brings to the table is the bigger sensor and the rangefinder experience.
 
The 1.6/1.5 crop factor of entry level dslrs suck, and the small zooms that allow you to get the equiv. 28/35mm focal length are too slow and soft. The iso performance is also nothing to brag about (sure they might appear cleaner but muddy and smudged compared to what you get from the m9), and the added mirror slap really forces you to shoot at higher speeds.
 
Mister E said:
Wow what a compelling argument. Did you want another 1.6 crop camera with a more up to date sensor or something else? It would be helpful to state that. I want a RD-FX that has a Nikon D700 sensor in it. I'd buy 5.
Click to expand...

Just a new R-D.
I don't mind the crop factor.
Maybe an improved sensor.
 
ashrafazlan said:
The 1.6/1.5 crop factor of entry level dslrs suck, and the small zooms that allow you to get the equiv. 28/35mm focal length are too slow and soft. The iso performance is also nothing to brag about (sure they might appear cleaner but muddy and smudged compared to what you get from the m9), and the added mirror slap really forces you to shoot at higher speeds.
Click to expand...

But the zooms for Leica are small and fast? Oh wait, they don't make zooms and the Tri-whatevers are large and slow.
Also not sure about the muddy and smudged high iso shots. Sure there's a filter on the sensor but that doesn't automatically make it muddy and smudged. Less clear than the Leica? Sure.
Also calling BS on the mirrorslap issue. The way mirrors are cushioned these days the mirrorslap doesn't really matter. Not nearly as much as your own movement. And Canon a lot of Canon lenses have Image Stabilization.

Anyways, no one here (at least not me) is arguing that an M9 is much nicer than a cheap DSLR. What I'm saying is that everyone here keeps complaining that they need a cheap RF when in fact there are plenty of options out there to cover their need. What they really are complaining about is that their wallets don't cover their wants.
 
LCT said:
I use both RFs and SLRs and i prefer the latters for wides personally. YMMV. Fact is that many photogs seem to prefer wides nowadays. For fear of showing (viewing?) things as they are perhaps, i don't know.
Click to expand...

i prefer a wide angle. i like to be close. it implies a relationship. intimacy.
 
The M9 is not a top-flight digital RF, as it is the only digital rangefinder. That makes the comparison with a cheap SLR entirely pertinant as a demonstration that a cheaper RF than a M9 can be made, just as a cheaper SLR than a 1D4 is made. It is a question of whether a RF will (probably not) be made for a lower cost rather than whether it can (it obviously can as Leica's methods and materials are premium). Leica does not have the a monopoly on the ability to make a DRF, just a monopoly on the will to do so.

The RD-1 was a rangefinder body with an available sensor inside. There is no reason why a few years later the same rangefinder body with a now improved newer and cheaper sensor should not be better and at least as affordable as the RD-1 in its day.
 
j j said:
The M9 is not a top-flight digital RF, as it is the only digital rangefinder. That makes the comparison with a cheap SLR entirely pertinant as a demonstration that a cheaper RF than a M9 can be made, just as a cheaper SLR than a 1D4 is made. It is a question of whether a RF will (probably not) be made for a lower cost rather than whether it can (it obviously can as Leica's methods and materials are premium). Leica does not have the a monopoly on the ability to make a DRF, just a monopoly on the will to do so.

The RD-1 was a rangefinder body with an available sensor inside. There is no reason why a few years later the same rangefinder body with a now improved newer and cheaper sensor should not be better and at least as affordable as the RD-1 in its day.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Unless you stick with a heavy crop, you need the sensor (big R+D costs), and either way you need a big enough market to realize economies of scale: a small-scale rival to the Leica could easily cost more than a used M8/M8.2, and I doubt the company would guarantee parts and maintenance until 2036.

There's a huge demand for cheap DSLRs; as you say, the demand for DRFs is more problematic. My suspicion is that the M9, together with the ready availability of used M8/M8.2, has probably killed the likelihood of new crop sensor DRFs, but I could very easily be wrong.

Cheers,

R.
 
I would like the Voigtlander 58/1.4 SL II in Canon EF mount. I would then being to acquire the whole SL II line for my Elan 7N. Unfortunately, there's no intention to release it in that mount, which I find strange, as every other lens in the line is available in EF mount.
 
The main thing I want is a lower-magnification finder with brightlines for at least the 24/25mm, and preferably for the 21mm lens as well. To allow the same view as the .58 Leica finder allows with the 28mm, the finder would have to be .50 for a 24mm, and .44 for the 21mm. So it would probably need to be a dedicated wide-angle camera. This is all assuming that the crop factor/sensor size remains unchanged.
 
Jamie123 said:
But the zooms for Leica are small and fast? Oh wait, they don't make zooms and the Tri-whatevers are large and slow.
Also not sure about the muddy and smudged high iso shots. Sure there's a filter on the sensor but that doesn't automatically make it muddy and smudged. Less clear than the Leica? Sure.
Also calling BS on the mirrorslap issue. The way mirrors are cushioned these days the mirrorslap doesn't really matter. Not nearly as much as your own movement. And Canon a lot of Canon lenses have Image Stabilization.

Anyways, no one here (at least not me) is arguing that an M9 is much nicer than a cheap DSLR. What I'm saying is that everyone here keeps complaining that they need a cheap RF when in fact there are plenty of options out there to cover their need. What they really are complaining about is that their wallets don't cover their wants.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my post. The reason I brought up zooms is because for most brands, that's the only option you have to getting the usual wide/normal focal length of 35mm (on a cropped camera, FX/FF can simply use a 35mm lens)

And the smudged images from high ISO is not so much from the sensors, but from the heavy noise reduction most dslrs employ (based on my own experiences with my 400d, 5dmk2 and D700)

And mirror slap is an issue, I've never been able to capture sharp images at 1/8s with any of my dslrs but manage it perfectly well with my M8. And yes, IS does come in handy..but name me a reasonably fast (f/2.8) zoom lense with IS that isn't a) Huge and b) Soft wide open (compared to the wonderful lenses you get on the M mount)

At the end of the day it all comes down to size, no matter how small a dslr is you're still dealing with a rather bulky design and large lenses (quality ones)

Also, regarding your last line..I have an M8, and can probably afford an M9 if I sell some of my nikon stuff. And yet I would still like a successor for the RD1, simply because I loved the feel and design of the first one. If it didn't have that blasted 1.5 crop factor, I'd buy it in an instant :) Also, lets be honest..if they did manage to come out with a FF RD2, it won't even come near to the price of an M9. Whether you like it or not, the Leica brand does add to the cost of their products..heck, look at the Dlux 4/Lx3.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom