Roger,
Let's start the discussion this way: the essence of M photography is a compact camera with superb lenses, manual focus, and a coupled range finder. Isn't everything else is window-dressing - especially when the digital versions share virtually no hardware (or even basic operation) with their referents?
In my view, it is inappropriate to benchmark digital cameras against film cameras, especially those from the past. An M3 was different from - not slower or less convenient than - its 1953 competition. So why are we aren't we benchmarking against current digital cameras? Really, we should be - only making allowances for the different viewfinder/focusing system.
This is not a question about bicycles with more wheels - this is discussion of a Leica's selling 10-speed with a huge front wheel when everyone else's wheels are equally sized to each other.
My questions:
1. Is the M mount itself is capable of delivering the best results in a compact, interchangeable-lens camera? By that, I mean looking at the flange distance and incidence angles and determining the load on the DSP and the effect on the resulting pictures. I would also evaluate the long-term prospects for acquiring up-to-date sensors and electronics. Leica seems to have gone through this kind of analysis for the S2.
2. Is a focal plane the right type of shutter? If the basic M mount proved limiting, I would consider changing the lenses to leaf-shutter operation: quieter, less-vibration prone, and synching flash at all speeds. This might sacrifice some top end speed for stopping action, but you could pull down the ISO. A Leica is not a sports or fast-action camera by any stretch anyway.
3. Is the RF mechanism too inaccurate and too expensive? I would target the M2-style rangefinder for critical analysis. On a flat sensor, it is not capable of accurately focusing lenses whose focus shifts with aperture changes. It would be useful to evaluate it against something like the passive, TTL system of the Contax G series (though I don't believe that compensates for aperture - but with an updated data-transmitting lens mount, it probably could).
And independently of the above, isn't it time to go to LCD projected framelines that (a) can be shown one at a time and (b) can automatically correct for field size? Take a look at how this works on the Fuji GA645zi.
Even if I kept the M2-style finder, I would evaluate whether using the Leica version was consistent with keeping the cost of the camera under control. The Japanese design-around (found in the CLE, the Hexar, the Bessa, the Mamiya 6/7, Fuji GSW690III, etc.) is perfectly functional and a lot cheaper to manufacture.
4. Is the Leica digital camera made from the right materials? Although a lot of people seem to think that the M8/M9 are lightweight, I think they're actually piggishly heavy. An M8 with a 35/1.4 ASPH is just as heavy as a Fuji GA645. It seems that part of this weight comes from the brass covers, which comprise (according to Norton) 25% of the weight of the camera. Why not epoxy-painted titanium or some other lightweight, indestructible finish? Not everyone wants a camera that will start brassing from day 1.
5. We can't do IS? On image stabilization, we know that sensor-based IS
can fit in a box the size of the Olympus EP-1 (with its APS-C sensor). So if stabilizing a 24x36mm sensor is a problem from the standpoint of physical layout, limit the sensor size to 18x27. And if the issue is corner quality with a shifted lens on a 24x36mm sensor, then limit the corrected area to the 18x27 area of an M8 sensor, just as Nikon has a DX setting on many of its cameras.
6. What about dust removal? Leica buys its sensors as complete assemblies (sensor plus electronics), mounted to boards. There is no cover glass replacement, meaning that scratching the sensor cover glass (replacememt cost: $1,800) is a big deal. Putting in an ultrasonic cleaner would go a long way toward fixing this. Digital Ms are poorly sealed against dust anyway, and having a cleaning mishap late in the life of an M8 or M9 is going to mean discarding the camera.
7. And sealing? I'm waiting for the explanation of my M8s and M9s can't be sealed against dust.
8. Controls? Why are users beholden to a control layout that originally was dictated by a mechanical shutter the camera no longer has? How about that bottom-plate loading? Why is Leica (for the first time in the M8, M9 and X1) imitating vestigial aspects of film cameras? I look at the Minolta CLE and Hexar RF control layouts, and both do a better job than the M6-style one, particularly when you don't want to turn on a screen to check things. Both of these cameras, incidentally, were excellent restatements of the Leica M philosophy in more modern form. What it would take in digital, however, might be a little more radical.
At the end of the day, I think it would be worthwhile for Leica to partner with a Japanese manufacturer that has access to modern technology - the same way Leica did with the R series - and build a new body, with a truly cutting-edge sensor - from the ground up. Take what is worthwhile from M lore; leave the rest on the operating table.
Why a more modern body? Conquest sales are going to count: with only a small number of pros using digital Ms, a dying user base, and a price point that means that most users will only buy one digital M a decade (if ever - you can only cash out your camera collection once for an M9...), I wonder how many repeat customers Leica would have. In the current competitive context, the less you have to explain about how things were done in the time of customers' grandfathers, the better.
I think Leica needs to think harder about taking the core tenants of M photography into the 21st century. For Leica (or its acolytes) to keep saying "this is all you need because this is how we did it in 1953" is little more than religion without spirituality. Or it's something like that early motor car that had a stuffed horse's head mounted to the front so it wouldn't scare people.
Regards,
Dante
Dear Dante,
What improvements do you suggest? Limiting yourself to those that can actually be incorporated using current technology and staying within the confines of a small, light, quiet, manual-focus camera?
For my money, Leica got it so close to right in 1953, and then again in 2009, that it's hard to see what improvements they can make outside details (faster ISO, external; battery/card back, usw).
It's a bit like asking why bicycles don't have more wheels.
Cheers,
R.
